{"id":2042,"date":"2015-02-10T21:33:40","date_gmt":"2015-02-10T21:33:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.peeriosity.com\/shared-services\/articles\/?p=2042"},"modified":"2022-08-11T13:42:34","modified_gmt":"2022-08-11T13:42:34","slug":"effectively-communicating-reconciling-items-with-internal-customers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.peeriosity.com\/shared-services\/articles\/2015\/02\/effectively-communicating-reconciling-items-with-internal-customers\/","title":{"rendered":"Effectively Communicating Reconciling Items with Internal Customers"},"content":{"rendered":"

As companies transition work activities to Shared Services there is an increased need to define responsibilities clearly for activities where visibility to underlying detail is available remotely, and not in the Shared Service Center where the transactions<\/a> are recorded.\u00a0 This is particularly true for the Account Reconciliation process<\/a>, where the reasons for reconciling items are often known only to the Shared Service\u2019s internal customers who are knowledgeable about the details for specific account transactions.<\/span><\/p>\n

Recently a Peeriosity member at a large global technology company was interested in improving their account reconciliation process<\/a>.\u00a0 Using Peeriosity\u2019s patent-pending iPollingTM<\/sup> process they were able to quickly source ideas from their peers.\u00a0 Here\u2019s the reason cited by the member for creating the iPollingTM<\/sup> questions:<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cWhen performing account reconciliations at our company, in case of discrepancies we notify our internal customers through e-mail. However, our approach and the format of the e-mails make it look like we are requesting additional information rather than asking them for help to resolve discrepancy issues<\/a>.\u00a0 We are interested in learning from other members what practices are followed for communicating discrepancies and getting assistance with getting discrepancies resolved.\u201d<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

While the requirement to obtain local staff assistance to fully and accurately complete account reconciliations is common across all companies with a centralized process for account reconciliations, interestingly, only 21% of member companies have implemented a standard format for communication with internal customers regarding reconciling items. An additional 21% are currently evaluating the idea of doing so, with 58% of companies have not considered the idea of using a standard format.<\/span><\/p>\n

This result is surprising, with almost all companies completing rigorous procedure changes within the past few years to comply with new Sarbanes Oxley requirements to ensure the integrity of financial records.\u00a0 While an ad hoc approach, if rigorously applied, might achieve the same level of quality as one that is standardized and consistently followed, it certainly won\u2019t ever be as efficient or low cost.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\"ipolling<\/p>\n

The follow up poll included in the iPollingTM<\/sup> questions asked whether the company had a defined escalation process when no response is received from the internal customer regarding the status of reconciling items.\u00a0 While an escalation process is in place at 32% of companies, more than twice as many, 68%, are not using a consistently defined process for escalation issues when the internal customer is not responding. \u00a0\u00a0While this result may be surprising, given the high percentage of companies that don\u2019t have a standard process in place for contacting internal customers, it is probably even more important to have a clearly defined process for escalation when responses are either not received in a timely manner, or they are not sufficient.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\"does<\/p>\n

Here are several of the comments added by iPollingTM<\/sup> participants:<\/span><\/p>\n