Reporting automation

The operational challenge

Finance and advisory teams need a reporting pack whose figures can be reconciled and whose exceptions remain visible through review.

People and information

The finance owner defines the reporting period, entity or client identifiers, control totals and metric definitions. Inputs are authorized ledger exports, client records and approved supporting documents; the reviewer receives the same dated source snapshot as the preparer.

How the workflow could work

Validate file structure and reporting periods, reconcile agreed totals, and identify unmatched items. Prepare the reporting pack with source links and a separate adjustment register. The finance owner investigates differences and approves the release after reviewing both the figures and unresolved exceptions.

Ownership and exceptions

Do not drop an unmatched item to make the totals balance. Late entries go to the finance owner for a decision about the current or next reporting cycle. Duplicate imports are identified before calculation; a corrected source creates a new reviewable version rather than silently changing an approved report.

A useful first evaluation

Reproduce one closed reporting period from its approved source snapshot. Include a duplicate import, an unmatched item and a late correction. Compare calculations and reconciliations with the accepted pack, and define who may prepare, adjust and release the next edition.

Define the baseline

Record preparation and review hours separately. Count unmatched items and their value at intake and at approval, plus corrections after release. Use the same period and reporting definitions for comparison. These measures assess workflow quality; they are not an assurance opinion or a claim of financial return.

Relevant systems

• Client portals
• Treasury data
• Reporting models
• Compliance workflows
• Document repositories
• CRM systems
• Dashboards