A lack of standards becomes apparent when comparable accounting transactions are processed differently depending on the person, time or situation. Individual deviations thus create a recurring pattern that cannot be explained by a short-term bottleneck.
Diverse filing systems, shifting responsibilities, personal to-do lists and unclear processing statuses can cause time spent searching and follow-up queries. The visible disorder can be a result of this. A possible structural cause lies in the lack of a shared working basis.
For the executive management, what matters is whether open tasks, decisions and responsibilities remain reliably traceable. Only this perspective separates a single point of friction from a permanent structural and standardisation problem.
A standard is a common basis for tasks and business transactions that occur repeatedly. In accounting, this concerns, among other things, the question of where documents are received, who takes over a process, how its processing status remains recognisable, and how queries or exceptions are handled.
Without this shared foundation, people involved can develop their own ways of doing things. One Purchase invoice is stored in the shared mailbox, another is forwarded by email and a third is saved in a personal folder. All three processes can be handled in the end, but their status remains variously easy for other participants to track.
The difference lies in the patternA single misfiled receipt is a concrete non-conformance. A structural problem is likely when comparable transactions are repeatedly handled differently and the organisation has to figure out anew each time where documents, responsibilities or decisions are to be found.
Responsibilities, handovers, deadlines, checks and processing statuses also need a shared, consistently applied logic. If this is missing, a process may be correctly completed in professional terms yet still trigger additional coordination effort because its path is not apparent to other people.
Unstructured accounting often manifests itself in scattered information, open queries and processes that are not clearly concluded. The crucial question is therefore not just whether documents are present, but whether those involved are working on the same process on a reliable and traceable basis.
Standard gaps become visible where participants first have to reconstruct the processing status. The effort arises not solely from the actual booking task, but from the search for documents, previous decisions and the responsible person.
Receipts reach the accounts department via email, upload, paper, personal mailboxes or internal chats. Without a shared filing logic, it remains unclear which inbound channel is binding and whether a document has already been processed. This makes duplication of effort and overlooked procedures more likely.
A process is forwarded without the responsibility being clearly transferred. The sender regards it as handed over, whereas the recipient recognises it merely as information. Particularly in the case of queries, approvals and special cases, the process can become stuck between multiple parties.
Appointments are scattered across personal calendars, task lists or emails, while at the same time there is no shared status such as open, under review, approved or completed. The company management can see individual activities, but lacks a reliable overview and sufficient transparency regarding the overall status of ongoing work.
Recurring queriesThe same information is sought or requested again for comparable processes.
Personal supplementary listsRevision statuses only exist in separate tables, notes or mailboxes.
Inconsistent filing systemsDocuments are located in several places and are named or classified differently.
Unclear handoversA redirection does not clearly indicate who is responsible for the process until its completion.
Spontaneous exceptionsSimilar special cases are treated without a discernible common line.
Open monthly tasksAt the time of evaluation, it is not clear which work is still outstanding.
Many standard gaps develop gradually. An initially pragmatic workaround remains in place, new employees take over only parts of the previous procedure, and additional intake channels are added. Over time, several ways of working exist side by side without their differences having been consciously decided upon.
Employees set up filing systems, reminders and control steps in a way that works for their own area of work. As long as the same person handles the process entirely, these differences often remain invisible. It is only when queries arise or handovers take place that it becomes apparent the knowledge of the procedure is not shared.
A missing receipt, an unexplained payment or a delayed approval requires a case-by-case decision. If this decision is only documented verbally or in a personal inbox, the traceable basis is missing for the next comparable case. The organisation starts with the same clarification all over again.
With a small number of operations, personal arrangements and memory can make up for many gaps. As the volume increases, so does the number of parallel queries, handovers and deadlines. The problem then lies not only in the greater effort, but in the fact that the existing individual practices do not result in a reliable, shared status of processing.
Even personal knowledge can conceal missing standards. The Reliance on individual employees becomes particularly visible when another person is to take over open tasks without the previous work context.
Such regulatory gaps do not only affect organisation and filing. They change how much time is tied up in searching and coordination, how reliably outstanding tasks are identified, and how robust subsequent analyses are.
| fault signal | Missing common rule | Typical immediate consequence |
|---|---|---|
| Receipts are located in different places | No uniform filing system | Search, duplicate entry or incomplete processing |
| Responsibilities change depending on the situation | Unclear division of roles | Queries and pending cases |
| Deadlines are listed individually | No joint deadline management | Delayed processing or short-notice escalation |
| Revision statuses are not identifiable | No uniform status | Duplication of effort or overlooked open points |
| Exceptions are decided on a case-by-case basis | No comprehensible exception logic | Different results for comparable processes |
If a shared version status is missing, clarification often begins with the question of who last worked on a process. This additional effort is part of the loss of time through searching and rework, but in this article is above all a signal of the missing common ground.
If two employees handle similar matters according to different habits, discrepancies arise in allocation, documentation or depth of control. Each individual decision may seem comprehensible. In the overall picture, however, a consistent approach for recurring cases is missing. Inconsistent allocations and uncoordinated controls thus become additional sources of error.
Unresolved receipts, unclear responsibilities and unrecognised monthly tasks have a knock-on effect right through to the reporting. Delayed and hard-to-trace evaluations are then a consequence of the unclear processing status, not the original structural problem.
The consequence may be visible elsewhereIncreased time expenditure, delayed evaluations and reliance on personnel can be related to a lack of standards. What these cases have in common is that comparable procedures cannot be processed on a reliably traceable basis.
The regulatory gaps described can extend to several work steps. New filing locations, additional employees and further exceptions increase the number of possible processing paths. Each additional variant can increase the effort required to reconstruct the actual status of a process.
With a growing volume of receipts and bookings, more information must be received, checked and assigned simultaneously. Without a shared status, additional queries and coordination can significantly increase the processing effort. The increasing demands amidst growing structures thereby exacerbating an already existing standard problem.
Cover requires more than access rights. It must be able to recognise which cases are open, which deadlines are running and why previous exceptions were handled in a certain way. If this information is missing, a handover becomes a reconstruction of personal working methods.
A pragmatic, non-standard approach can speed up an individual process. If it is used repeatedly, it creates an additional workflow alongside the existing procedure. With each additional variation, it becomes more difficult to maintain consistent expectations regarding the filing, responsibility and completion of a process.
escalation signalThe risk increases when outstanding issues can only be resolved by making personal enquiries and senior management is unable to gain a shared overview of deadlines, responsibilities and the status of tasks.
A structural risk is suggested when differing ways of working no longer merely concern convenience or tidiness. The decisive factor is whether bookkeeping can be carried on in a comprehensible manner even under pressure, during absences, and with changing responsibilities.
The company management needs to be able to see which tasks are completed, being resolved, or still unprocessed. If this overview is missing, deadlines, queries and necessary coordination may only become apparent when an evaluation is missing or another business area asks about it.
GERMAN COMMERCIAL CODE and AO require a comprehensible Bookkeeping and complete, accurate, timely and orderly records for those obliged. For IT-supported procedures, the GoBD provide for controls, the specific design of which depends on the business activity, organisational structure and system used.
This does not prescribe a uniform organisational model for every company. The crucial factor is that procedures, responsibilities and controls remain sufficiently traceable in the specific environment. Personal habits alone can often only ensure this traceability for as long as the person in question is available and their working context remains known.
The critical point is reached when questions regarding the booking status can only be answered through multiple individual discussions. Then there is a lack of a common basis on which substitutions, checks and evaluations can be built. The problem no longer affects just daily organization, but the reliable continuation of accounting.
Companies can examine whether they can, in the event of a structural problem that cannot be resolved internally in the long term, Outsource accounting.
Brasser Accounting Solutions GmbH is a specialised accounting service provider that supports companies with financial accounting, payroll accounting, and the structuring of modern digital accounting processes. The aim is a collaboration that is professionally sound, organisationally relieving, and reliably functional in everyday use.
Brasser Accounting Solutions GmbH is part of a corporate group with Quint GmbH Tax Consultancy & Auditing and the Swedish accounting and tax firm Service Place Årjäng AB.
