Technology & Transformation

Digital Transformation Consulting

Automation sequenced around process outcomes, not software licences.

Redesign and automation of the finance and back-office operating model: order to cash, procure to pay, record to report, and the reporting layer above them. We fix the process first, then select and implement the systems that support it.

Typical turnaround
A diagnostic and roadmap engagement runs 3 to 4 weeks. A finance ERP or cloud accounting migration with integrations typically runs 10 to 16 weeks to go-live plus 4 to 6 weeks of hypercare; multi-entity, multi-country or multi-currency implementations, and those requiring statutory filing integration, extend to 6 to 9 months.
Service code
ART-DTC-007
Engagement models
Fixed fee per phase · Milestone-based · Monthly retainer for programme management
Delivery
Virtual, secure document exchange

Indicative fee from

₹3,00,000

Indicative starting fee for a finance process diagnostic and transformation roadmap. Implementation, system selection and migration phases are scoped and priced separately once the roadmap is agreed.

Request Consultation
  • Engagement letter issued before work begins
  • Named engagement lead and defined reporting cadence
  • Confidentiality and access controls on all workpapers
  • Fee adjusted if the confirmed scope is smaller

Prefer to talk first? Call +91 7303967800 or message us on WhatsApp.

Description

Most finance transformation programmes are bought as software and fail as process. A platform is selected on a demonstration, implemented against the way the organisation already works, and eighteen months later the same reconciliations are still being done in spreadsheets alongside it, the close still takes twenty-five days, and the reporting the board actually uses is still assembled by hand the night before the meeting. The licence was never the problem. Automating a broken process produces a faster broken process and a maintenance obligation.

Our approach inverts the sequence. Before any system question is opened, we establish how the process currently runs, where it stops, who touches each step, how many times the same data is entered, and where the exceptions come from. The majority of cycle time in finance operations is usually consumed by rework, chasing approvals and reconciling systems that were never designed to agree. Removing steps costs nothing in licences and typically delivers more than the technology does.

What the engagement covers

The work spans the core finance cycles. In order to cash, that means the path from quotation through order capture, fulfilment, invoicing, e-invoicing and IRN generation, collection, dispute handling and cash application, with the objective of reducing days sales outstanding and eliminating the unapplied cash that clogs the receivables ledger. In procure to pay, it means requisition, approval, purchase order, goods receipt, three-way match, invoice capture, exception handling and payment run discipline, with vendor master governance underneath it. In record to report, it means the chart of accounts and its dimensional structure, automated bank reconciliation, intercompany matching and elimination, accrual and provision workflows, a close calendar with tasks tracked to owner, and the consolidation and reporting layer above.

System selection is performed vendor-neutral and against requirements the client has agreed, not against a demonstration script. We build a weighted requirements matrix, run structured evaluations with scenarios drawn from the client’s own transactions, and compare total cost across licence, implementation, integration, data migration and the internal effort the client will have to fund. Integration architecture is designed explicitly, mapping which system is the master for each data object and how billing, customer relationship management, payments, banking, payroll, expense management and GST filing exchange data. Migration is planned with cut-off, opening balance validation, historical data policy and a documented fallback position, because cut-over is where most implementations actually go wrong.

Controls, data governance and compliance

Automation changes the control environment rather than removing the need for one. Approval workflows have to encode the delegation of authority rather than bypass it, maker-checker separation has to survive the removal of manual steps, and system access must be role-based with periodic review. Indian companies must also maintain accounting software with an audit trail and edit log feature, operating throughout the year and not disabled, under the Companies (Accounts) Rules; auditors are required to report on this. Personal data held in finance and HR systems falls within the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023, which affects retention, access, vendor arrangements and cross-border hosting decisions. These constraints are designed in at the architecture stage, since retrofitting them after go-live is expensive and disruptive.

Who this is built for

Companies whose transaction volume has outgrown their accounting system. Groups running incompatible systems across entities after acquisitions. Finance teams whose headcount grows in proportion to invoice volume. Businesses where the month-end close has become the constraint on decision-making. And organisations that have already bought a platform and need help making it deliver the outcome it was purchased for.

Engagement models

Fixed fee per phase · Milestone-based · Monthly retainer for programme management

Expected turnaround

A diagnostic and roadmap engagement runs 3 to 4 weeks. A finance ERP or cloud accounting migration with integrations typically runs 10 to 16 weeks to go-live plus 4 to 6 weeks of hypercare; multi-entity, multi-country or multi-currency implementations, and those requiring statutory filing integration, extend to 6 to 9 months.

Scope of Work

  • Current-state process mapping across order to cash, procure to pay and record to report, capturing handoffs, rework loops, duplicate data entry and exception volumes
  • Quantified baseline of the metrics the programme will be judged on, including days to close, days sales outstanding, invoice processing cost, touchless invoice rate and reconciliation effort
  • Target operating model design defining what is standardised, what is automated, what is centralised and what is deliberately left as a judgement-based manual step
  • Chart of accounts and dimensional data model redesign so that reporting by entity, cost centre, product, channel and project is produced by the system rather than by spreadsheet
  • Master data governance for customers, vendors, items and employees, covering ownership, creation workflow, duplicate prevention and periodic cleansing
  • Vendor-neutral system selection using a weighted requirements matrix, scripted scenario evaluations using the client's own transactions, and total cost of ownership comparison
  • Integration architecture defining the system of record for each data object and the interfaces between billing, CRM, payments, banking, payroll, expense management and statutory filing
  • Automation of statutory processes including e-invoicing and IRN generation, e-way bills, GST return preparation from source data, and TDS computation and challan workflow
  • Automated bank reconciliation, intercompany matching and sub-ledger to general ledger tie-out, with exception queues routed to named owners rather than to a shared inbox
  • Close acceleration through a task-level close calendar, standardised journal templates, cut-off discipline and reduction of dependencies between sequential tasks
  • Reporting and business intelligence layer built on a defined data model, with metric definitions documented once so that the same measure does not differ between two reports
  • Access control and audit trail design covering role-based permissions, maker-checker separation, delegation of authority encoded into workflow, and the audit trail requirements applicable to accounting software
  • Data migration and cut-over planning with opening balance validation, historical data retention policy, parallel run design and a documented fallback position
  • Change management and adoption support including role-based training, revised standard operating procedures, hypercare staffing and post-go-live benefits tracking

Key Deliverables

Current-State Assessment and Pain Register

Process maps for each finance cycle with the quantified baseline metrics, and a register of pain points ranked by cost, cycle time impact and control risk rather than by how often they are complained about.

Target Operating Model

The redesigned process design showing roles, controls, systems and handoffs in the future state, with the specific changes required to move from current to target identified step by step.

System Selection Scorecard

A weighted requirements matrix with each shortlisted platform scored against scripted scenarios drawn from the client's own transactions, alongside a three-year total cost of ownership comparison.

Integration Architecture Map

A documented view of every system in the finance landscape, the master for each data object, the direction and frequency of each interface, and the reconciliation control over each flow.

Migration and Cut-Over Plan

Data mapping, cleansing rules, opening balance validation approach, cut-over sequence with a task-level timetable, and the defined conditions under which the fallback position is invoked.

Automation Backlog with Business Case

A prioritised backlog of automation opportunities, each with the effort required, the benefit expected and the dependency on other items, so that sequencing is a decision rather than an accident.

Benefits Tracking Report

Post-go-live measurement of the same baseline metrics captured at the start, so the programme is assessed on process outcomes achieved rather than on modules deployed.

How the Engagement Runs

Diagnostic and baseline

We map the current processes with the people who actually operate them, quantify the baseline metrics, and review the existing system landscape and data quality. Business and IT stakeholders both participate. The phase closes with an assessment report and an agreed set of metrics the programme will be measured against.

Target design and roadmap

The future-state process, data model and control design are drafted and tested with process owners, and the change is sequenced into releases with dependencies and effort identified. The phase closes with a signed-off target operating model and a phased roadmap with a business case attached.

Selection and architecture

Where new systems are required, we run the vendor-neutral evaluation and design the integration architecture, master data ownership and access control model. The phase closes with a documented recommendation, a negotiated commercial position and an approved architecture.

Build, configure and migrate

Configuration is executed against the target design, interfaces are built and tested, and data is cleansed, mapped and migrated with opening balances validated. User acceptance testing is run on real scenarios. The phase closes when acceptance criteria are met and the cut-over plan is approved.

Cut-over and hypercare

Go-live is executed to the cut-over timetable, with a defined fallback position and elevated support staffing for the first two closes. Issues are triaged daily. The phase closes when a full period-end has been completed in the new environment without material intervention.

Benefits realisation and handover

The baseline metrics are re-measured, the remaining automation backlog is reprioritised on what was learned, and documentation and administration are handed to the internal team. The phase closes with a benefits report and an agreed ownership model.

What You Gain

Close completed inside the month

Removing sequential dependencies and automating reconciliation moves reporting close to real time, which changes what management can decide and when it can decide it.

Headcount decoupled from volume

When invoice and transaction volume can double without a proportionate increase in processing staff, growth stops carrying an automatic back-office cost with it.

One version of every number

A defined data model with documented metric definitions removes the recurring argument over whose report is correct, which is where a surprising share of management time goes.

Controls strengthened, not bypassed

Encoding the delegation of authority into workflow makes the control mandatory rather than customary, and it produces the evidence of operation an auditor will ask to see.

Technology spend that is justified

Vendor-neutral selection against agreed requirements avoids paying for capability that was compelling in a demonstration and unused in production.

Compliance designed in from the start

Audit trail, retention and data protection requirements addressed in the architecture cost a fraction of what they cost when retrofitted after go-live under audit pressure.

Industries We Serve With This Engagement

Manufacturing and distributionRetail, e-commerce and consumer brandsProfessional and business servicesHealthcare and clinic networksLogistics and transportationTechnology and SaaS companiesEducation institutions and groupsNBFCs and financial servicesMulti-entity groups after acquisition

Frequently Asked Questions

With the process, and with a measured baseline. Before any system decision, establish how long the close actually takes, how many invoices are processed per person, what proportion pass without manual intervention, how much time goes into reconciliation, and where exceptions originate. That baseline does two things: it identifies the steps that should be removed rather than automated, and it gives the programme something to be judged against later. Starting with a platform selection means the process gets designed around the software's assumptions, which is how organisations end up with expensive systems and unchanged operations.

We are vendor-neutral and hold no reseller or commission arrangements, which is a deliberate position because it is the only way selection advice is worth anything. The recommendation follows from the requirements: transaction volume, entity and currency structure, industry-specific needs such as batch traceability or project accounting, statutory filing integration, existing systems that must be retained, internal technical capability and budget. We build a weighted matrix, run scripted evaluations on the client's own transaction scenarios, and compare total cost across licence, implementation, integration and internal effort over three years.

Deliberately and with less data than most clients initially expect. The standard approach is to migrate open items and balances rather than full transaction history, retaining history in read-only form in the legacy system or an archive. Data is profiled first, cleansed against defined rules, mapped to the target structure, and loaded into a test environment where opening balances are validated against the closed trial balance before anything touches production. Duplicate customers, dormant vendors and stale inventory items are resolved before migration, since carrying poor master data into a new system reproduces the old problems immediately.

Companies covered by the Companies (Accounts) Rules must use accounting software with an audit trail feature that records every change made to the books of account, retains the edit log, and cannot be disabled. The auditor is required to report on whether the feature was used and operated throughout the year. In practice this affects platform selection, configuration, and any workaround that involves editing data outside the application. We assess the position during the diagnostic and confirm it at selection, because a platform that cannot demonstrate compliant audit trail behaviour creates a reporting problem at every subsequent year end.

Against the baseline captured before anything changed. The measures that matter are process outcomes: days to close, days sales outstanding, cost per invoice processed, the proportion of invoices passing without manual touch, reconciliation hours per month, and the volume of exceptions requiring intervention. Modules deployed and licences activated are not outcomes. We re-measure the same metrics after go-live and again after stabilisation, and report the difference. Where a benefit has not materialised, the more useful question is usually whether the process change was actually adopted, not whether the technology works.

Finance and payroll systems hold substantial personal data: employee records, bank details, customer contact information, expense claims. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 introduces obligations around lawful processing, purpose limitation, retention, security safeguards, breach notification and the rights of the individuals concerned. Practically, that affects how long data is retained after an employee leaves, who inside the organisation can access it, what the contract with a cloud provider or an outsourced processor must contain, and where data is hosted. These decisions are far cheaper to make during architecture design than after a system is in production.

By involving the people who operate the process in designing its replacement, which resolves most resistance before it forms. Beyond that: role-based training on the actual work rather than generic system training, rewritten standard operating procedures that reflect the new process rather than the old one, elevated support through the first two period-end closes, and visible removal of at least one task people genuinely dislike early in the programme. Where resistance persists after that, it is usually pointing at a real design problem, and the sensible response is to examine the design rather than to escalate.

Frequently, yes. The common causes are identifiable: the process was never redesigned, configuration mirrors the legacy system, master data was migrated without cleansing, integrations were deferred and are now filled by manual spreadsheet steps, or users were trained on features rather than on their revised workflow. We diagnose against the same baseline approach used for a new programme, separate what the platform genuinely cannot do from what it was simply never configured to do, and produce a remediation plan. Replacing a platform is occasionally the right answer, but it is rarely the first one.

Related engagements

Often scoped alongside this

Want this scoped to your situation first?

Tell us the specifics. We will confirm whether this is the right engagement, what it would cost, and how long it would take.

Request Consultation Browse Services