Turn reconciliation breaks into organized exceptions.
For fund administration & financial operations
Worked example. Figures use stated volumes and handling times, not client results. A pilot measures your own baseline before any outcome is reported.
Preparation & review per item
Preparation & review per item
At 40 items per month
The work before
the work.
Fund administrators often compare statements, transaction records, and internal ledgers by hand. Operations staff spend significant time gathering evidence for unmatched items.
A workflow built
around the team.
Normalize incoming records, apply agreed reconciliation rules, gather evidence for unmatched items, and prepare exception summaries for operations staff.
The embedded engineering team would map the current process with users, agree on an evaluation set, connect approved sources, and test a reviewable prototype before a staged deployment.
Operations personnel approve resolutions and adjustments. The software does not move money, hold assets, or execute financial transactions.
Make the assumptions
visible.
Assume 40 items per month and a change from 5 to 2 hours of staff preparation and review per item.
= 120 staff hours / month
That is a 60% cut in time spent on this task, rounded to the nearest whole percent. It is potential staff capacity, not a claim of cash savings or additional revenue.
Implementation effort, ongoing review, maintenance, and model or infrastructure costs would need to be measured separately. Actual outcomes depend on document quality, case complexity, and adoption.
Useful in a demo.
Proven in the workflow.
- Staff time per item, including corrections and review
- Accuracy and completeness on representative cases
- Exception rates, rework, and turnaround time
- User adoption and ongoing operating cost
Compare a documented baseline with a bounded pilot using comparable cases. Agree on quality and approval criteria before expanding the workflow.