A more controlled close, designed around your finance reality.
Most close cycles still depend on chased data, manual intercompany, and an audit trail that is more archaeological dig than control. We help finance teams diagnose where that fragmentation creates risk, design the target close workflow, and validate it through hands-on demos before any implementation begins.
| Statement of Profit or Loss | Actual | Budget | Var. % | PY |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | 86,420 | 82,100 | +5.3% | 78,640 |
| Cost of goods sold | -52,180 | -50,840 | +2.6% | -49,120 |
| Gross Profit | 34,240 | 31,260 | +9.5% | 29,520 |
| Personnel expenses | -18,640 | -17,900 | +4.1% | -16,840 |
| Other operating expenses | -3,840 | -4,200 | -8.6% | -4,080 |
| EBITDA | 11,760 | 9,160 | +28.4% | 8,600 |
| Depreciation & amortisation | -4,280 | -4,100 | +4.4% | -3,960 |
| EBIT | 7,480 | 5,060 | +47.8% | 4,640 |
| Financial result | -1,420 | -1,500 | -5.3% | -1,380 |
| Profit Before Tax | 6,060 | 3,560 | +70.2% | 3,260 |
The close most CFOs actually live with.
Close complexity has grown faster than the tooling around it. Multiple ERPs, intercompany volumes, multi-GAAP requirements, and audit expectations now collide with workflows still anchored in spreadsheets and email. Before any technology decision, the operating model itself needs to be rethought.
"The close takes 12 days. It should take 5."
Every month, the same manual steps. Collect trial balances, post journals, reconcile intercompany, translate currencies, consolidate, review, adjust, report. Each step depends on the one before. One delay cascades through everything.
"Nobody trusts the intercompany numbers."
Entity A says they owe Entity B $2.4M. Entity B says $2.1M. The difference is $300K and it takes three days of emails to find it was a timing issue on one invoice. Every. Single. Month.
"We have four ERPs and five versions of the truth."
One subsidiary runs SAP. Another uses Microsoft Dynamics 365. A third runs on Cegid Primavera or Sage. Consolidation means downloading, reformatting, and stitching everything together. In Excel. Every month.
"The auditor asked for the audit trail. We sent a zip file."
Adjustments tracked in email threads. Journal entries in local files. Reconciliation sign-offs in a shared folder nobody maintains. The audit trail is not a trail. It is an archaeological dig.
Solution areas we help finance teams design.
These are not pre-built modules. They are the use-case domains where we help define the target workflow, validate it through live walkthroughs, and shape a phased implementation path.
Designing consolidation logic across entities, currencies, and standards.
We help shape how intercompany eliminations, currency translations, and multi-GAAP views (IFRS, local GAAP, group reporting) should be modelled from a single, governed data set. We define how ownership changes, acquisitions, and equity method investments need to be reflected in the target operating model.
The objective is a consolidation flow with cell-level traceability from the consolidated statement back to the source transaction - designed first, then implemented in the right tooling.
| Line Item | Actual | Budget | Var. | PY |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ▸ Revenue | 86,420 | 82,100 | +5.3% | 78,640 |
| Changes in inventories | 124 | 0 | - | 86 |
| = Total operating performance | 86,544 | 82,100 | +5.4% | 78,726 |
| ▸ Cost of goods sold | -42,180 | -40,200 | -4.9% | -39,840 |
| = Gross Profit | 44,364 | 41,900 | +5.9% | 38,886 |
| ▸ Personnel expenses | -18,240 | -17,800 | -2.5% | -16,920 |
| ▸ Other operating expenses | -8,640 | -8,200 | -5.4% | -7,980 |
| = EBITDA | 17,484 | 15,900 | +10.0% | 13,986 |
| ▸ Depreciation & amortisation | -4,280 | -4,100 | -4.4% | -3,860 |
| = EBIT | 13,204 | 11,800 | +11.9% | 10,126 |
| ▸ Financial result | -1,240 | -1,400 | +11.4% | -1,380 |
| = Profit Before Tax | 11,964 | 10,400 | +15.0% | 8,746 |
| Date | Entity | Type | EUR | Posting | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 26 | Valcor Ind. | Import | -65,451 | Import Q1.2026 | Locked |
| Feb 26 | Valcor Ind. | Import | -66,106 | Import Q1.2026 | Locked |
| Mar 26 | Valcor Ind. | Import | -67,428 | Import Q1.2026 | Locked |
| Apr 26 | Valcor Ind. | Import | -67,428 | Import Q2.2026 | Open |
| May 26 | Valcor Ind. | Import | -68,102 | Import Q2.2026 | Pending |
A more disciplined way for entities to submit, validate, and lock close data.
We help define structured submission workflows for subsidiaries: how files are timestamped, validated, locked once approved, and how manual overrides are documented. The goal is clearer ownership over who submitted what, when it was imported, and which posting block it belongs to.
This is shaped together with the client and made tangible through a hands-on demo before implementation.
A target model where data collection is structured, validated, and reviewable - replacing email chains with a documented submission flow.
Designing centralised journal management across multiple ERPs.
We help define how journal entries - recurring, ad-hoc, and consolidation - should be modelled, approved, and posted across multiple ERP environments. The work covers templates, role-based approval workflows, and the connector and integration architecture most appropriate for the client landscape.
The target is a designed journal flow with traceability from any reported figure back to the source transaction, framed by realistic implementation choices.
A more structured approach to matching, certification, and exception handling.
We help shape reconciliation workflow design - matching logic across GL, sub-ledgers, and bank statements, risk-based certification by account, exception routing, and review discipline. Implementation depends on the client's existing tooling and target architecture.
The design defines how one-to-one, one-to-many, and many-to-many matching should work, what is auto-handled vs reviewed, and where governance sits.
A reconciliation flow where matching decisions, exceptions, and certifications are documented and reviewable - shaped to fit the client's risk profile.
From a fragmented close to a designed close.
A view of the operating-model shift we typically help clients design and validate before any implementation.
A close held together by people
A close designed for control and review
The dimensions of a designed close.
These are not features of a packaged product. They are the design dimensions we work through with finance teams to shape a stronger target operating model.
Multi-GAAP consolidation logic
Designing how IFRS, US GAAP, and local statutory views should be modelled in parallel from a single, governed data set.
Reconciliation workflow design
Defining matching logic, certification approach, exception routing, and review discipline to fit the client's risk profile.
Intercompany matching design
Shaping matching rules at every parent level - one-sided, two-way, multi-way - with tolerance logic and timing-difference handling.
Journal entry operating model
Defining how recurring, ad-hoc, and consolidation journals should be templated, approved, and posted across multiple ERPs.
Submission and audit trail design
Shaping the validation rules, locking logic, and traceability needed across the close - designed before tooling is selected.
Close orchestration design
Mapping tasks, owners, dependencies, and review checkpoints to give the CFO and Controller real visibility over the cycle.
Common Questions
No. This page reflects the type of designed close environment we help clients shape and validate based on their entities, ERPs, GAAPs, and reporting requirements. We are a finance-led design and implementation partner, not a packaged software vendor.
Not as a default position. Our role is to assess what the target operating model should look like, which workflows need to change, and what combination of process design, tooling, and partners is most appropriate. Replacement is one option among several.
It depends on scope, the number of entities, the ERP landscape, and the priorities chosen. We start with a focused diagnostic, agree the target workflow direction, and then sequence the work in phases. We avoid quoting fixed timelines before that diagnosis.
Yes. The design considers your existing systems landscape and reporting obligations - IFRS, US GAAP, local statutory, group reporting - and shapes how a single governed data model and connector strategy should work in your environment.
We show working demos built around the close workflows most relevant to your priorities - for example, intercompany, consolidation, journal management, or reconciliation - to help stakeholders assess fit before scaling.
No. In most situations, the most effective approach is phased - starting with the area of highest risk, complexity, or business priority. The target model can extend over time as confidence grows.
Ready to redesign
your close?
If your close depends on chased data, manual intercompany, and reporting stitched together late in the cycle, we can help you define the right target model, validate it through a working demo, and shape a practical implementation path.