The routine half of finance should run itself.

No, and we would usually argue against it. An ERP or accounting platform automates transactions; almost none of them automate the human process wrapped around those transactions — the chasing, the checking, the copying between systems. That process layer is where this work sits, and it sits on top of whatever you already run.

A developer can automate a step faster than we can. What they cannot tell you is which control that step was carrying. Manual finance processes accumulate checks that nobody documented — a second pair of eyes on a payment run, a sense-check before a journal posts. Automate the step without replacing the control and you have removed the control. We are an accountancy practice, so identifying those is the part we are actually qualified for.

The ones that are high-volume, rule-driven, and currently done by someone whose judgement you are paying for. That combination is specific to your business, which is why the Review starts by watching your actual process rather than proposing a standard package.

That is a legitimate outcome and it is written into the plan. Some processes are low enough volume that the build cost never pays back, and some carry judgement that should stay with a person. A plan that says so is more useful than one that does not.

Yes. The work is delivered remotely and the process problems are the same wherever the entity sits. Where local regulation drives the timetable — e-invoicing mandates, for instance — that becomes part of the sequencing rather than a separate exercise.

The Review is a fixed fee agreed before it starts, scoped to the number of processes in view. Anything built afterwards is quoted separately, against the plan, and is entirely optional — the plan is yours either way.