Case studies/Professional & Business Services

A financial close that explains itself

Move the close from spreadsheet chasing to exception-led control.

FirstVal customer — multi-entity business services group

Finance operations and controllership

Daily: Reconciliation readiness
One queue: For material exceptions
Cited: Variance commentary

01 — The intro

Where the story starts

Month-end close had become a recurring mobilisation. Finance teams collected files from operating entities, reconciled systems, investigated unexplained movements and rebuilt the story for leadership under deadline pressure.

The customer needed more than task automation. It needed an operating model that knew which difference was timing, which was mapping, which was material and which needed accountable judgement.

Close mode: Periodic
Work pattern: Workbook-led
Review focus: Undifferentiated

02 — The challenge

Create one trusted close position across entities while preserving ownership, materiality rules and accounting judgement.

—Reconciliations began late because source data and supporting schedules arrived on different calendars.
—Teams spent equal attention on immaterial differences and issues that could move reported performance.
—The same variance was described differently across entities, weakening management confidence.
—Evidence, approvals and commentary were scattered across workbooks, email and finance platforms.

Improve

Close confidence and decision speed

Reduce

Manual reconciliation and late surprises

03 — The solution

A financial twin of balances, movements and controls, supported by agents that reconcile, investigate and draft — never approve their own work.

01Mapped source ledgers, sub-ledgers, billing, payroll and treasury feeds to a common close model.
02Ran continuous reconciliation and classified breaks by timing, mapping, duplicate, missing entry or judgement.
03Applied entity-specific materiality thresholds and accounting policies before creating an exception.
04Assigned exceptions to the accountable owner with evidence, ageing and proposed resolution attached.
05Generated variance commentary from approved figures and cited the transactions behind each statement.
06Required controller approval for journals, policy judgements and management reporting narratives.
07Fed recurring root causes into process owners so the close became progressively quieter.
Impact
Finance managed the close through material exceptions rather than repeated file collection.

04 — Value logic

How operating change reaches financial value

Continuous reconciliation

Breaks are identified and classified as transactions arrive.

Less peak-period effort and fewer late reporting adjustments.

Materiality-led queue

Controller attention is directed to exceptions that can alter the reported position.

Higher-value use of finance capacity and faster sign-off.

Root-cause closure

Recurring breaks become owned process fixes with measured recurrence.

Close effort declines over time instead of resetting every month.

05 — Feature delight

What people actually felt

One materiality lens

Every exception is ranked against the rules that matter to that entity and reporting period.

Commentary with proof

Draft explanations link back to approved balances and transaction drivers, so reviewers can test the story quickly.

A close that learns

Repeated breaks become process-improvement work rather than permanent month-end rituals.

06 — Ground impact

What moved, and by how much

Continuous

Reconciliation

Teams see emerging breaks before the formal close window.

Focused

Controller effort

Review time moves to material exceptions and judgement.

Consistent

Narrative

Variance language follows one approved financial position.

Auditable

Close evidence

Sources, actions and approvals remain attached to the result.

07 — Measurement

How the result stays accountable

Readiness

Track reconciled balances, unresolved material exceptions and evidence completeness before close day.

Control

Monitor manual journals, late adjustments, approval breaches and reopened exceptions.

Productivity

Measure effort by reconciliation type and the recurrence of previously resolved root causes.

08 — CSAT score

Scored by the customer, A+ to D

Automation removed repetition; the control tower preserved the judgement and accountability that make the numbers trustworthy.

A+: Controller experience
A: Reconciliation workflow
A: Management reporting
A+: Audit readiness

09 — More customer stories

Keep reading

Transport & Logistics