← Back to Chez Solutions · Use your browser print option to save this report as PDF
Chez·Solutions Finance & Data Consulting
Remote
Cross-border
Finance Support
Sample Deliverable

Finance
Health Check

A diagnostic that turns a tangled close and uncertain numbers into a clear score, a risk map, and a 90-day plan leadership can act on.
Prepared for Acme Foods Group  ·  multi-entity food manufacturing & distribution  ·  illustrative sample
About this sample
This is an anonymised, fictional sample built to show the structure and depth of a Chez Solutions finance diagnostic. Acme Foods Group does not exist; every figure, entity and finding is illustrative. No real client or employer is represented.
Engagement
Finance Health Check
Scope
3 entities · Odoo + Excel
Document
Sample v1.0
The Subject

Client profile & scope

A growing group that has outgrown its month-end. The numbers eventually arrive — but late, by hand, and without enough confidence to drive decisions.
Structure
3 entities
holding · processing · cold-chain
Sector
Food
manufacturing & distribution
ERP
Odoo
+ Excel for FA & reporting
Base / FX
TZS
USD & EUR purchase exposure
Finance team
4
incl. group accountant
Current close
15 days
working days to board pack

The group at a glance

Acme Foods Group trades through three intercompany-linked entities: Acme Foods Ltd (holding and distribution), Acme Processing Ltd (manufacturing of honey and edible oils) and Acme Cold-Chain Ltd (storage and logistics). Goods, recharges and shared overheads move between all three. Consolidation is performed manually in Excel after each entity closes its own books in Odoo.

What we reviewed

General ledger and sub-ledgers (AR, AP, bank, inventory, fixed assets); the month-end close walkthrough; intercompany balances; VAT control and EFD evidence; the chart of accounts and master data; the current board reporting pack; and the analytic/dimension structure across all three entities.

How we assessed it

Document review, direct ERP interrogation, a timed close walkthrough with the finance team, sample-based controls testing, and data profiling of the GL and master files. Findings are scored against the Chez Solutions seven-dimension finance health framework.

In one line

Acme's books are complete but not controlled — the team gets there through effort and overtime, not through a system that makes the right answer the easy answer.

All currency figures are shown in Tanzanian Shillings (TZS) and are illustrative only.

01  /  Executive summary

What we found, and what to do

Acme Foods Group runs a finance function that is diligent but under-engineered. Every account is eventually reconciled and every report eventually produced, but the path there is manual, sequential and dependent on a few key people. The result is a 15-working-day close, a board pack that lands too late to change anything, and a control environment with several gaps that carry real audit and tax exposure.

None of this is unusual for a group that has grown faster than its systems. It is also highly fixable. The same three entities, the same ERP and the same team can support a six-day close and decision-ready reporting — the constraint is process and configuration, not capacity.

Headline assessment

Overall health
54/100
Developing
Close cycle
15 days
target: 6 days
High-risk gaps
4
of 11 control findings
Recoverable effort
~11 days/mo
via automation

The five things that matter most

  1. Close the intercompany loop. Balances between the three entities do not agree and are eliminated by manual Excel adjustment. An illustrative TZS 11.8M difference sits unexplained at period end. This is the single biggest driver of both close delay and consolidation risk.
  2. Get the banks reconciled inside the close. Only two of five bank accounts are reconciled before the books are signed off; aged reconciling items of ~TZS 6.3M have sat for more than 90 days.
  3. Make inventory cost defensible. Standard costs are 14 months stale, three SKUs show negative on-hand, and internal stock transfers post no GL entry — so stock value and the GL quietly drift apart.
  4. Reconcile VAT control to filings, and tie EFD receipts to invoices. Today neither is done routinely, leaving a revenue-completeness and tax-exposure gap ahead of any TRA review.
  5. Move the board pack from day 18 to day 6 — with commentary. Leadership currently steers using numbers that are three weeks old and carry no narrative or cash forecast.
Bottom line

Acme does not need more people or a new ERP. It needs locks, matching and a gated close — then targeted automation. Done in sequence, that takes the close to six days, frees roughly eleven finance-days a month, and turns reporting into something leadership can actually act on.

02  /  Finance health score

Where the function stands

Seven dimensions, weighted by impact, scored 0–100 against the Chez Solutions framework.
Overall finance health
54/100
Developing
0–39 At risk — material weaknesses; numbers not yet reliable
40–59 Developing — books complete but manual and exposed
60–79 Solid — controlled, timely, mostly automated
80–100 Strong — fast, controlled, decision-grade
Close discipline & timeliness15-day cycle, sequential, key-person dependent
40
Reconciliation coverage & qualitypartial bank coverage; intercompany unmatched
45
Controls & segregation of dutiesshared posting/approval; no period locks
48
Data quality & ERP hygieneCOA bloat, master-data duplicates
55
Reporting & decision supportlate pack, no commentary, no cash forecast
50
Compliance & audit readinessVAT control & EFD evidence not reconciled
52
Automation & scalabilitymanual recs & consolidation; high effort
35

The pattern is consistent: the data is mostly sound, but everything around it is manual. Data quality and compliance score in the middle band because the underlying records are reasonable; close, reconciliation and automation drag the overall score down because the group relies on effort rather than design. That is the good news — manual problems respond quickly to process and tooling, without re-stating the books.

Reading the score

A move from 54 to the high 60s is realistic within one quarter, driven almost entirely by the close, reconciliation and automation dimensions — the three with the most headroom.

03  /  Month-end close review

Anatomy of a 15-day close

The close is slow not because any one task is hard, but because tasks run in series, with no gate confirming a step is truly done before the next begins.

Close-cycle risk map

Illustrative close timeline for Acme Foods Group. Risk reflects likelihood of rework or error at each phase.
PhaseDayOwnerKey risk / bottleneckRisk
Sub-ledger cut-off & AP/AR posting1–3AP/AR clerksLate supplier invoices; cut-off not enforcedMed
Bank & cash reconciliation3–6Assistant acct3 of 5 accounts done outside the close; aged itemsHigh
Inventory & COGS5–8Cost acctStale standards; transfers with no GL impactHigh
Fixed assets & depreciation6–8Group acctExcel register not tied to GL; depreciation lagMed
Intercompany matching & recharges8–11Group acctBalances don't agree; manual eliminationHigh
VAT & statutory reconciliation10–12Group acctControl account not tied to filings/EFDMed
Consolidation (Excel)12–15Group acctSingle spreadsheet, single point of failureHigh
Board pack & commentary15–18Finance leadBuilt by hand after consolidation; arrives lateMed

Why it takes 15 days

Serial, not parallel. Each phase waits for the previous one to finish, so a delay anywhere pushes everything right.

No close gate. Nothing formally confirms a reconciliation is clean before the next step depends on it — so errors surface late, as rework.

Key-person dependency. The group accountant personally owns intercompany, FA, VAT and consolidation. Four critical paths, one person.

What a 6-day close looks like

Day 1–2: hard cut-off, locks on, banks auto-matched.

Day 2–4: inventory, FA and intercompany run in parallel, each gated by a sign-off check.

Day 4–5: VAT reconciled, consolidation rolled from a repeatable model.

Day 6: board pack generated, commentary added, issued.

04  /  Reconciliation & control gaps

The control register

Eleven findings, four of them high-risk. Each carries a recommended control — most are configuration and routine, not headcount.
Risk: High   Medium   Low. Figures illustrative (TZS).
RefAreaFindingRiskRecommended control
C-01IntercompanyBalances between Foods / Processing / Cold-Chain do not agree; ~TZS 11.8M eliminated by manual Excel entry with no audit trail.HighMonthly intercompany matching template; agreed recharge policy; mirror postings.
C-02Bank & cash2 of 5 bank accounts reconciled within close; reconciling items >90 days of ~TZS 6.3M.HighAll accounts reconciled by Day 3; aged-item clear-down; auto-match rules.
C-03Inventory costStandard costs last revised 14 months ago; 3 SKUs negative on-hand; build/transfer variances unreviewed.HighQuarterly standard-cost refresh; negative-stock block; variance review.
C-04Stock → GLInternal transfers between locations generate no GL entry in current config; stock value and GL drift apart.HighCorrect transfer accounting config; monthly stock-to-GL tie-out.
C-05VAT controlVAT control account not reconciled to filed returns; differences carried forward unexplained.MedMonthly VAT control reconciliation to filing; documented bridge.
C-06EFD evidenceFiscal (EFD) receipts not matched to sales invoices; revenue-completeness gap.MedEFD-to-invoice matching control; exception report.
C-07Fixed assetsExcel register not tied to GL control 12700001; a disposal posted in GL still shows active in the asset module.MedRegister-to-GL tie-out each month; disposal checklist.
C-08Suspense / clearing70+ aged items in the clearing account, oldest ~8 months; used as a catch-all.MedWeekly clear-down; zero-balance target at close; ownership.
C-09AR allocationCustomer receipts left unallocated; AR ageing unreliable for credit decisions.MedSame-day cash allocation; remittance discipline.
C-10Segregation of dutiesSame user can post and approve manual journals; no independent review threshold.HighMaker-checker on journals above threshold; approval matrix.
C-11Period controlNo period locks; prior-period postings possible after sign-off.MedLock periods at close; controlled re-open with approval.

The four high-risk findings cluster around intercompany, bank, inventory and journal control — the areas an auditor tests first and the ones that stretch the close. Fix these four and both reliability and speed improve fastest.

05  /  Reporting & dashboard gaps

Numbers that arrive too late to use

Today

Board pack issued around day 18, rebuilt by hand in Excel every month.

No written commentary linking results to actions — numbers without a story.

No 13-week cash forecast; cash is managed by bank balance and instinct.

No KPI dashboard; no consolidated view that ties cleanly to the entities.

What good looks like

Decision-ready pack by day 6, generated from a repeatable model.

Half a page of commentary: what moved, why, and the action it implies.

Rolling 13-week cash forecast with working-capital levers.

KPI dashboard: gross margin by entity & SKU, DSO / DPO, cash runway, close-day tracker.

06  /  ERP & data-quality findings

The plumbing underneath

Data-quality findings from profiling the GL and master files. Figures illustrative.
FindingDetailSeverity
Chart-of-accounts bloat~600 accounts, an estimated 140 unused or duplicated; inconsistent naming across entities.Med
Inconsistent analytic tagsCost-centre / dimension tagging applied unevenly, so segment reporting can't be trusted.Med
High manual-journal volume~180 manual journals per month — a workload and a control risk; many are repeatable.High
Master-data duplicatesDuplicate customer and vendor records; some partners missing tax configuration.Med
FX revaluation noiseRealised vs unrealised FX not cleanly split; revaluation entries inflate P&L volatility.Med
No embedded close checklistClose runs off a personal spreadsheet, not a shared, gated, auditable checklist.Med
The principle

Clean and standardise before you automate. Automating a bloated chart of accounts or a duplicate-ridden customer list just makes the mess faster. Hygiene first, then tooling.

07  /  30 / 60 / 90-day action plan

From diagnosis to a controlled close

Stop the bleeding first, build the routine second, automate last. Each window has a clear outcome.

First 30 days Stabilise

  • Turn on period locks and a hard month-end cut-off.
  • Clear the bank backlog — all five accounts reconciled, aged items resolved or written off with approval.
  • Agree an intercompany policy and introduce a monthly matching template.
  • Reconcile VAT control to the latest filings; document the bridge.
  • Freeze the chart of accounts and start the clean-up list.
  • Maker-checker on manual journals above a set threshold.

Days 31–60 Build the routine

  • Shared, gated close checklist with owners and sign-off per step.
  • Fix stock-to-GL config and refresh standard costs; resolve negative stock.
  • Tie the fixed-asset register to the GL; correct the stranded disposal.
  • Redesign the board pack with commentary and a variance-to-budget view.
  • Stand up a 13-week cash model the team can roll each week.
  • EFD-to-invoice matching as a monthly exception report.

Days 61–90 Automate & scale

  • Automated intercompany matching across the three entities.
  • Bank auto-reconciliation with rules and exception queue.
  • Live KPI dashboard — margin, DSO/DPO, cash runway, close-day tracker.
  • Repeatable consolidation replacing the single Excel file.
  • Close compressed to 6 working days, board pack by day 6.
  • Monthly controls pack evidencing the new routine for audit.
Expected outcome by day 90

Close at 6 days, health score in the high 60s, all four high-risk findings closed, and ~11 finance-days a month returned to the team for analysis instead of assembly.

How an engagement runs

01

Diagnose

Health check & this report (≈2 weeks).

02

Stabilise

Locks, recs, controls — the first 30 days.

03

Automate

Matching, recs, reporting on top of Odoo.

04

Run

6-day close, monthly controls pack, support.

08  /  Automation opportunities

What to automate — and what to fix by hand first

Not everything should be automated, and nothing should be automated while it's still broken. This is the triage.
Time-saved figures are illustrative monthly estimates for a group of this size.
ProcessCurrent effortSequenceApproachTime saved
Chart-of-accounts clean-upHighFix firstOne-off rationalisation & mapping—
Intercompany policy & rechargesHighFix firstAgree rules before matching—
Bank reconciliationHighAutomateRules-based auto-match + exceptions~2.5 d
Intercompany matchingHighAutomateMatching engine across entities~2 d
EFD ↔ invoice matchingMedAutomateScheduled match + exception list~1.5 d
ConsolidationHighAutomateRepeatable model replacing Excel~2 d
Board pack & KPIsMedAutomateGenerated pack + live dashboard~2 d
13-week cash forecastMedAutomateRolling model, weekly refresh~1 d

The automation layer is built to work with the existing Odoo instance, not to replace it — connectors read and write to the ERP, reconciliations run against the live sub-ledgers, and the dashboard sits on top of the consolidated numbers. The aim is a finance function that scales with the group without scaling the headcount.

This is what a Chez Solutions diagnostic delivers.

A clear score, a ranked control register, a costed 90-day plan, and an automation roadmap that works with the systems you already run — finance experience and purpose-built tooling, in one engagement.

Get a finance health check
info@chezsolutions.co.uk
Web
chezsolutions.co.uk
Where
Remote & cross-border
Lugha
Msaada wa Kiswahili

Sample report based on a fictional multi-entity SME, prepared to show the structure and depth of a Chez Solutions finance diagnostic. “Acme Foods Group” is not a real organisation; all entities, figures, balances and findings are illustrative and do not represent any actual client or employer. © Chez Solutions. Sample v1.0.