Introduction
RevOps and Data Teams haven’t been around long, so this isn’t exactly an “age-old” debate, but splitting up these teams into various reporting lines unnecessarily complicates your business.
Let me start with a story. The first time I led a finance team with a separate RevOps team (under Sales at the time) and a Data Team (under Tech), I didn’t think much of it. I assumed RevOps handled system setups and admin work, while Data focused on complex queries within our system. I was mistaken. The next thing I knew, the Finance, Data, and RevOps teams were clashing over projections, actuals, policies, and target feasibility. Nothing came to blows, but there were plenty of “different interpretations of the same data.”
After a while, I pinpointed the real issues:
A Finance team that doesn’t understand the RevOps pipeline and operations doesn’t truly understand the business.
A RevOps team that doesn’t understand finance metrics (cash burn, ARR growth, etc.) only sees half the picture.
A Data team that doesn’t understand overall operational or financial metrics will get lost when managing systems and iterating on infrastructure.
Everyone in the organization wants one set of numbers. There’s no value in having “RevOps numbers,” “Finance numbers,” “Data team numbers” and then whatever numbers Sales or the CEO might be spitballing.
All three teams perform similar analyses but in different tools and formats, creating redundancy and confusion.
Good analysts are good analysts. Strong RevOps analysts can easily become strong Finance analysts or strong Data analysts (and vice versa). You want fewer, better people in these roles.
The organization becomes confused about “who to go to for what analysis,” as all three teams are responsible for servicing a department’s data needs. This happens despite endless charts and roles and responsibilities designed to paper over the issue
Six months in, I spoke with the Head of Sales and Head of Tech. Nobody wants to lose headcount, of course, but both also recognized that managing a partial numbers team wasn’t the best use of their time. So both teams moved under Finance. Within a couple of months, we had a single set of numbers, a unified range of projections, and a small team of analysts all collaborating on difficult problems. We were able to hold one weekly team meeting without additional “negotiations.” Any issues as a service department were resolved quickly as they went directly to me, rather than being split between three leaders. This approach was more efficient, saved money, and produced better results.
In short, if a company wants to make strong, strategic decisions based on unified data, there’s little reason to divide these teams into separate management lines unless there are serious trust issues within the executive team. By shifting all ‘numbers teams’ under Finance, you can turn them into one unified strategy powerhouse. In practice, this enables you to:
1. Provide the company with one set of numbers
What defines a “Finance number” versus a “RevOps number” versus a “Data number”? Pipeline? SQLs? NDR? Logo count? Company usage? These numbers are all interlinked throughout the customer journey. To simplify:
Finance should “own” the numbers. This ensures accuracy and communication. In a startup or scale-up, these functions almost always overlap.
The executive team should rely on one source of truth. If the Sales lead or Tech lead provides a different interpretation or model than the CEO (who relies on Finance), it delays decisions and creates distraction.
All numbers should be linked. Ensure that your numbers are consistent and integrated to drive action rather than debate.
To make quick, sound decisions, you need one team responsible for producing the single source of truth. Finance is the clear owner due to its org-wide mandate and responsibility not only to the CEO but also to the board. Multiple “versions of the truth” across departments lead to disagreements rather than action and will significantly slow down your company’s ability to make decisions.
2. Unify your business partner support to solve problems, quickly
Having three semi-analysts dedicated to the same team (like Customer Success) creates confusion. Who handles analysis requests? Who’s responsible for cohort breakdowns? Who manages department performance dashboards?
Unifying these teams under one management makes it easy to assign a single business partner per team to manage systems, budgeting, dashboards, and data requests. For example, the business partner for Sales should be a RevOps analyst who also handles budgeting. The partner for HR should be a Finance analyst, and the partner for Tech should be a Data analyst who also reports actuals. Here’s why this works:
One analyst will truly understand the team. Growth is achieved when teams have insight into both financial and operational aspects to identify and solve problems. Splitting this responsibility between two people creates context gaps.
Analysts share similar skill sets. Both Finance and RevOps analysts are adept at working with data, performing analyses, working in systems, and developing policies. While the depth of expertise may vary, people often underestimate how much these roles overlap.
It provides growth opportunities for team members. Specialists bring unique perspectives, and by broadening their scope, team members gain more opportunities to level up their skills and advance in their careers.
You’ll attract top talent. Professionals are drawn to roles with increased scope and complexity, making these positions more interesting and competitive compared to other companies.
Teams prefer working with a single support person. One point of contact simplifies communication, eliminates repeated explanations, and allows the business partner to embed deeply with the team they support.
Streamlining analysts under Finance makes this process seamless. Without unification, it becomes a tangled mess of dotted lines, direct lines, various project pipelines, and coordination meetings, turning every task into a negotiation between three separate ‘numbers teams.’
3. Streamline your ‘numbers’ team structure
It’s hard to keep companies flat. No large company dreamt of growing into a bureaucracy. The unification of the three teams under finance allows you to:
Maintain flat structures. Have all analysts report directly into the CFO. Alternatively, you can explore other structures, such as appointing a deputy as Data Lead or RevOps Lead, depending on your preference.
Hire fewer, higher-quality analysts. T-shaped analysts (with strong expertise in one area and broad experience in others) will produce better results by understanding the key structures.
Provide better support as a service department. Anyone assigned to business unit support should manage the budget, analyze key decisions, and ensure their tools work. The business partners you hire should have strong technical expertise in their primary area (e.g., a RevOps background for Sales is a must). Secondary skill sets, such as training RevOps professionals to manage budgets or Finance professionals to use tools, can be developed on the job.
Why complicate matters with redundant analysts who only see half the picture and report essential data to different business units?
Tip: Why still maintain Finance, RevOps, and Data Analyst roles? For two reasons: First, the people you hire for each have slightly different specialties (financial modeling, technical tool knowledge, and database skills) so you can hire the right people into the right roles. Second, a ‘head of RevOps’ can become a natural deputy for the CFO. This person deeply understands the systems and numbers while maintaining a strong focus on revenue growth.
4. Improve risk management and compliance
Most of the time, there’s nothing to worry about. However, placing RevOps under Sales to handle pipelines and opportunities can create conflicts of interest. By unifying, you will be able to:
Reduce bias in revenue reporting. Finance is impartial by design. A finance-led RevOps function is less likely to be swayed by quarterly sales targets, and a finance-led data team is less likely to choose vanity metrics that don’t reflect real product usage.
Ensure consistency in key metrics. There should be no “RevOps CAC” versus “Finance CAC,” nor “RevOps customer cohorts” versus “Product team cohorts.” Under one management structure, metrics are unified and consistent across the organization.
Maintain a single source of truth. Finance often has expertise in cross-checking numbers across operations to ensure they are comprehensive (think bank recs for cash collections).
Fix numbers quickly. Correcting discrepancies often requires expertise from RevOps, Finance, and Data (e.g., resolving retention issues caused by inaccurate sales, usage, or pricing data). Combining these teams leads to faster resolutions.
This simplification strengthens risk management and enhances compliance for the company’s most critical metrics.
5. Elevate both teams’ understanding of the business by using one system
It’s surprisingly common for each ‘numbers team’ to conduct similar analyses but in vastly different ways. Within a few months, this leads to a multitude of spreadsheets and databases across the organization, each with unique formats that are hard to integrate into a single operating model. By placing the teams under Finance, you can:
Hold fewer, better meetings. You hold one meeting a week with your team that covers revenue and finance. This *quickly* de-silos the information and allows both teams better insight.
Improve all-around strategic advice. Policies like discounting and pricing strategies are more effective when closely tied to profitability goals and budget constraints. Finance targets and projections are greatly enhanced by a deep understanding of the revenue funnel and usage patterns.
Standardize analysis and tools. Analyses should be conducted once and thoroughly reviewed by an executive before being presented to other leaders. This enables other teams to focus on results rather than deciphering different methods of data analysis.
Ensure data consistency. It becomes easier to spot discrepancies (e.g., CRM data showing one figure while the operational model shows another), allowing errors to be caught and corrected quickly.
By allowing the CFO to insist on the same level of rigor across teams, team members not only learn from each other and identify mistakes more easily but also provide better advice to other teams.
In conclusion
By placing your Data Team and RevOps teams under Finance, you can provide better, more unified support that elevates both teams’ ability to do better work. It is possible to achieve many of these goals without these teams reporting to Finance, but it’s significantly more challenging. Why make it harder than it needs to be? In the end, this isn’t just about reporting structure; it’s about setting up the business for success by empowering both teams to provide strategic insight.
