Share a read-only data set
Transactions, master data, approvals and selected policies—without changing your ERP.
Finance Fingerprint
See how finance actually behaves—not how the process was designed.
Finance Fingerprint connects transactions, master data and workflow history to show where value leaks, controls weaken and intelligent automation can deliver a measurable outcome.
Build the finance data model
Connect documents, suppliers, employees, worktags, contracts, payments and decisions.
Run the diagnostic catalogue
Test timing, value, variation, control, data quality and behaviour patterns.
Size impact and readiness
Separate quick wins from structural fixes and high-risk automation ideas.
Turn insight into a build plan
Define KPIs, rules, approval tracks, agents and a bounded pilot.
Evidence people recognise
Findings specific enough to act on.
Choose a process to see the difference between a generic KPI and a Finance Fingerprint finding.
One tax-code mismatch creates 31% of the AP delay.
The overall cycle time looks average, but a specific supplier and spend-category combination repeatedly moves invoices into an unresolved queue.
Evidence: invoice lines · supplier master · worktags · exception and approval history
Delegation hides an approval-design problem.
A particular approver delegates nearly every invoice to the same colleague. The process reaches the wrong role first and adds time without adding control.
Evidence: approval event · role · delegation · amount · organisation
Payment terms differ from the contract for one supplier cluster.
Invoices are consistently scheduled later than the agreed terms, increasing late-fee exposure and losing potential discounts.
Evidence: contract · invoice · supplier · due date · payment outcome
Fulfilled services wait for a manual billing trigger.
Completed milestones in one service line remain unbilled until project managers send a separate confirmation outside the system.
Evidence: contract · milestone · project · billing event · invoice
DSO drift is concentrated, not enterprise-wide.
The increase sits mainly in a single customer segment with disputed invoice references—not in customer payment behaviour overall.
Evidence: customer · invoice · dispute reason · cash receipt · ageing
Credit notes trace back to the same source-data correction.
A recurring error in customer or project attributes causes invoices to be reissued, adding work and delaying cash collection.
Evidence: invoice · credit note · correction · customer and project master
Five recurring journals drive most late adjustments.
The issue is not journal volume. It is a small group of entries where supporting evidence arrives after the review window.
Evidence: journal · account · preparer · approver · attachment · timing
The same reconciliation breaks every period.
Recurring unmatched balances share an upstream source and account combination, pointing to a standing interface or mapping issue.
Evidence: reconciliation · source · account · entity · adjustment history
Low-risk journals receive the same scrutiny as unusual ones.
Review time is not aligned with value, frequency or deviation from prior patterns, creating workload without a proportional control benefit.
Evidence: journal history · amount · account combination · review outcome
Payment choices ignore visible penalties and discounts.
The current run filters by due date, while commercially important consequences remain outside the proposal logic.
Evidence: open item · due date · terms · discount · penalty · available cash
Mandatory obligations compete with ordinary invoices.
Tax and statutory dues enter through a separate channel and are not consistently prioritised against supplier, payroll and expense obligations.
Evidence: obligations · category · deadline · cash forecast · payment proposal
Selections are visible; the reasoning is not.
Users can see what was included in the payment run but cannot explain why equally due items were excluded when liquidity was constrained.
Evidence: candidate items · selection changes · balance · approver action
What the client receives
A diagnostic and a build specification.
The Fingerprint does not end with a dashboard. It translates evidence into the functional building blocks needed to improve the process or configure Finance OS.
01
Executive outcome view
Material findings, value at stake, risk, concentration and recommended action.
02
Diagnostic catalogue and KPI detail
Definitions, source fields, calculation logic, evidence samples and data limitations.
03
Rules and approval configuration
Candidate business rules, exception types, confidence thresholds and approval tracks.
04
AI opportunity portfolio
Use cases scored by business impact, data readiness, feasibility and control sensitivity.
05
Pilot and value roadmap
A bounded first release with baseline KPIs, target outcomes, ownership and scale path.
Start with a conversation
Which finance process deserves a closer look?
Tell us where the friction is visible. We can identify the smallest useful data set, the right diagnostic scope and the first measurable question to answer.
No ERP write-back is needed for the diagnostic. A read-only extract is enough to begin.