Illustrative case: reporting for 35 entities

Fictional example — not a customer testimonial or measured result.

Scenario

An invented group has 35 entities using several accounting systems. Its finance team spends the close collecting files, mapping accounts and asking local teams to explain differences. The entity count is a scenario assumption.

Proposed method

1. Inventory all 35 entities and assign an owner to each submission.
2. Pilot three entities with different charts of accounts.
3. Reconcile source totals and maintain a versioned group mapping.
4. Review intercompany differences and currency policies with the finance lead.
5. Expand only after the pilot acceptance criteria are met.

What to measure

Track submission completeness, unexplained differences, manual adjustments and the time from first import to finance approval. Establish a baseline before claiming savings.

Illustrative deliverables

An entity completeness view, a group reporting table and an exception list linked to source records. These are proposed outputs, not evidence of an implemented customer project. These deliverables are a proposed working method, not measured outcomes.

A pilot you can accept

1. Choose three contrasting entities: one straightforward export, one different chart of accounts and one with unresolved source questions.
2. Keep a submission register with entity, period, source file, owner and review status. A missing submission stays visible.
3. Record the expected report before importing. Log every difference with its source records, explanation, owner and resolution.
4. Repeat the same period, then try a second period. Expand to the remaining entities only after the reviewer accepts both runs.

Evidence to keep

Checkpoint	Evidence to keep
Coverage	Every expected entity has a submission or a named exception
Traceability	A selected report line leads back to its contributing records
Repeatability	Reimporting the same input does not add duplicate records