From controlling at a renowned state bank to working in an internationally operating SME and finally to management consulting: Jonas Keppler has already sat on many chairs. What all stages have in common: his passion for numbers. Which restructuring case does he consider the most exciting of all time? How can CFOs and controllers be convinced to use AI? And with which guiding questions does he inspire medium-sized companies to think big? A conversation with Jonas Keppler – about numbers, impact, and perspective.
Mr. Keppler, during your dual studies you worked at a state bank, three years within corporate structures, and went through all the key areas of the bank. Why did you then move into the real economy?
I made the change because I was primarily interested in the bank’s clients – the companies. I first moved to a large corporate subsidiary that operated in a completely different field: B2C debt collection with an international focus. There I became assistant to the management board, came into contact with the topic of restructuring for the first time, and accompanied the operational restructuring process of a company abroad.
Was that the trigger for your area of specialization? Today you are Partner and Head of Team Finance at enomyc in Stuttgart.
Yes, at that time I experienced how diverse and demanding restructuring projects are. That was definitely a spark for the restructuring business, but it was also an experience that made two things very clear to me: First, for successful implementation it is enormously important to bring all stakeholders along. And second: Not every restructuring measure from the textbook works just because it is written there.
Do you have an example?
Yes, if you plan to outsource business units – such as moving a call center from Scotland to Egypt – at first it seems like a sensible measure to reduce costs. In practice, however, it may fail: in our case already in the test phase due to language barriers and technical latencies. This example shows: what looks economically plausible is not automatically feasible in practice.
What are further learnings from this case? You mentioned, for example, how important it is to bring all stakeholders along in the transformation process. How can that be achieved?
Primarily through active listening. Employees – regardless of seniority or qualification – usually have numerous good ideas and are just waiting to be asked and involved. Afterwards it is crucial to convince stakeholders and actively integrate them.
Our role as consultants usually also consists of accompanying the implementation of restructuring measures. We therefore depend on the responsible parties being at least as convinced of our improvement measures as we are. Otherwise it does not work. In short: I learned that numbers are not everything. It is about involving people. Only then does a calculation – even a transformation – become rewarding: when everyone stands behind the common goal and perceives it as a joint project rather than just a management directive.
After this case you caught fire for the transformation business.
Yes, from then on I wanted to focus permanently on transformation and restructuring consulting. So in April 2020 I started at enomyc, initially as Senior Consultant.
What other topics are you passionate about?
Numbers are definitely my world. My enthusiasm is not only professional, but part of my personality. However, what truly makes a numbers-focused team successful is something else: bringing numbers to life.
How do you bring numbers to life?
An ambitious revenue target in two years or a thoroughly detailed integrated business plan inspires no one – neither employees nor shareholders nor banks. It is only when people recognize their place in a numerical framework that real impact emerges. That is why we must always answer three central questions for stakeholders: Why is each one of them needed? What is their contribution? And what do they gain from it? Once these questions are answered, a number becomes a common goal. Only then do numbers begin to tell a story that is not only understood but also carried forward. As a consultant you must master both: calculating accurately and bringing people along.
Where did you learn to inspire people for a common goal?
I suspect already during my school and university years. At that time I played a lot of field hockey. Later I became a coach, then a referee. If you are particularly passionate about a field, you eventually want to embody it completely. It is the same for me in the financial sector.
In what role do you see yourself today: player, coach, or referee?
It is a mixture of player and coach. As a Partner, I am less involved in day-to-day project business than I used to be. That is part of the role, even though it is extremely difficult for me. The passion for the business you have managed for years does not simply fade. At the same time, there is no alternative to letting go, handing projects over to the team with confidence, and taking a step back. Fortunately – this is the coaching philosophy – I often find that colleagues handle tasks in their own way, brilliantly.
Looking at your résumé, one unusual station stands out: you also studied philosophy for a year. Why? What influence does philosophy have on your consulting work?
I consciously took the time because philosophy has always interested me and the classical business studies program, which I later completed, unfortunately left it out entirely. Philosophy teaches above all to think about problems in a structured way, regardless of context. I find it fascinating that many philosophical writings, some of which were created thousands of years ago, still have such high relevance today. We live in a very exciting and fast-moving time. Taking a step back and looking at things through the lens of ancient philosophers is grounding.
You mentioned exciting times: what exactly are you following with particular interest at the moment?
In finance, I currently see several exciting developments. A central question for me is: how will artificial intelligence actually impact finance and companies? At what speed? Which activities can be replaced by AI and which cannot? The promises made by AI are significant and certainly not unfounded. But the deeper you go into the details and examine what can truly be optimized, the quieter the competitive landscape becomes.
Why is that?
German SMEs are hardly prepared for the possibilities of using AI. There are reservations. Studies show: only one in four or five companies currently uses AI, and even then often only to a limited extent. At the same time, the opportunities are enormous – particularly with regard to demographic change. Many CFOs, controllers, and accountants will retire in the coming years. The finance function is already understaffed in many companies today. AI can play a central role here in compensating for lost competencies and making processes more efficient.
Now AI is currently the final stage on the optimization scale. Are there not also other tools that are already showing impact?
Yes – for example, classical automation solutions such as Robotic Process Automation (RPA). They can already create high efficiency by automating processes that are still carried out manually today. The first step – even before the use of AI – would be to take stock and then develop a vision. From “What is currently being done?” to “What is theoretically possible?” Knowledge about AI’s possibilities, we observe, is still far too scarce. Which immediately raises the question: if so few are actively engaging with AI, what immense competitive advantage would those have who start right now?
What are examples of AI applications in finance?
Extremely many. One is accounting: it is largely rule-based. AI can be trained to identify anomalies and theoretically check whether bookings carried out are correct – always with a cross-check, of course. In the future AI could also generate booking proposals that then only need to be executed. AI is also suitable for special topics such as fraud detection. In reporting it can already explain figures: to find the cause of why a number looks the way it does, elaborate research is otherwise required, combing through databases and asking employees. These questions, however, can also be asked directly to AI. Example: a company achieves a particularly good margin in one month. With AI one can analyze over time and across dimensions – geography, product, and more – to identify the reasons. AI accelerates analysis enormously. It generates proposals and simplifies the work immensely. Companies can test this very easily, in a secure environment of course – not in public GPTs.
So the simplest use case for finance professionals is to upload a dataset and ask AI questions about it?
Correct, and then to honestly ask themselves how long it would take them to answer all these questions themselves by analyzing the dataset.
And the honest answer would be?
At least ten times longer, perhaps even a hundred. It is simple: if you ask yourself who is faster or more efficient, AI increasingly wins. That is a competitive advantage that usually convinces every CEO, CFO, and controller. Above all, it is a good exercise to persuade skeptics and a great example of how AI works as support, not as a replacement.
You advise acting with foresight, answering the question of where the journey is headed and how. What are perhaps three steps to pave the way?
From my experience, companies often tend – even in their short-term planning – to focus on what supposedly cannot be done: for example, what resources they lack. Or they do not dare to enter a market because it already has a market leader. However, I see several good approaches for companies to break away from this mindset. Step one is to answer the first and perhaps simplest question: what is my company particularly good at? The next question follows: how can this outstanding element be further strengthened? Where can it find more sales opportunities? If it is a technology, for example, can it be integrated into another product and sold? With this perspective companies can train themselves to adopt a mindset that focuses on options rather than deficiencies.
But that is not all. What is the next step?
Not being afraid of mistakes. A certain culture of risk-taking is part of entrepreneurship. Finance typically calculates what investments are worth. This makes it easy to calculate what happens if a project fails. For example, what happens if a site is opened that does not pay off? The second step helps enormously if companies first hypothetically consider what possibilities they have to test their venture without taking major risks. To deliberately say: this is not yet a decision. How can I cheaply test a hypothesis or opinion that I have?
And after that?
Then the questions follow: what are the growth areas – and where are they? In which markets and product segments can the company grow? These questions should be considered with a horizon of the next five to ten years – deliberately detached from possible obstacles. Successful companies thrive on growth, on more revenue. A large part of finance is based on the principle of budgeting, i.e. cost control – an extremely important area. Of course budgets must be respected, of course reporting is necessary, the look in the rear-view mirror to check what is right and what is wrong. But one should not forget to keep an eye on opportunities and the future. There is no long-term success without also taking calculated risks.
Of all the restructuring cases you know: which one do you currently find the most exciting?
Globally speaking, I currently consider Germany the most exciting restructuring case. Europe certainly as well. But viewed closely, Germany is an extremely complex case with many stakeholders. It almost seems unsolvable. I find it fascinating to observe how the various actors will deal with it over the next one to two years – because we are all part of this case. And there is still no clear idea of the target direction. That is certainly a challenge in this restructuring case. At the same time, the framework conditions are difficult: it requires many different approaches. From an entrepreneurial perspective there are also numerous hurdles that make it harder to even get into the mode of taking risks.
What solution would you envision? If you were Chancellor, what would you change?
Politically speaking, there are basically two approaches and many variations in between: through regulation and subsidies, or through unleashing the forces of free markets. I believe it is an error to assume that individuals can know which industries or measures are economically “right” or “wrong.” The difficult framework conditions we face today stem, in my view, from many well-intentioned intentions, from which a multitude of laws and regulations have emerged that today paralyze us more than they drive us. If I were to make a proposal, it would be this: for every additional new law passed, two old ones should be abolished. Because the love of solutions also entails removing everything that hinders the way forward. A simple but effective mechanism.
