Accounting and consolidation design
Methods, treatment and whether the configuration matches the policy it is supposed to implement.
Financial consolidation
An Independent Read on the Consolidation You Already Have.
A time-boxed review for organisations whose Group Reporting solution is live or materially built, and who want to know — from someone with no stake in the answer — whether the design, the close and the controls are where they should be.
Why organisations ask
A solution can pass every test and still be the wrong shape.
Implementation testing proves that the system does what the specification said. It does not tell you whether the specification was right, whether the design will survive the next acquisition, or whether the close depends on one person being available in week one.
Those questions are usually asked for the first time when something has already gone wrong. This engagement asks them deliberately, on a fixed timescale, and gives you the answer in a form you can act on or take to a steering committee.
- The close works, but nobody can explain why a particular figure moved
- The consolidation takes longer to run than the calendar allows for a rerun
- Reconciliation differences are cleared manually every period by the same person
- An auditor has asked a question the team could not answer from the system
- The implementation partner has left and the team has inherited decisions it cannot trace
- A go-live is approaching and you want an independent read before committing
Packaged engagements
Three sizes, all time-boxed.
Every one is fixed-scope and fixed-duration. You know what you are buying before it starts, and it finishes when it says it will.
| Package | Typical duration | Best for | Core output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rapid Health Check | 5 working days | A focused concern, or an executive checkpoint before a decision | Priority findings, red flags and immediate actions |
| Standard Health Check | 2 weeks | An end-to-end review of a solution that is live and operating | Scored review, findings register and remediation roadmap |
| Deep-Dive Health Check | 3–4 weeks | Complex live environments, or pre-go-live assurance | Detailed design assessment, walkthroughs, evidence review and prioritised remediation plan |
What gets reviewed
Twelve dimensions, scored.
Not all twelve matter equally to every organisation. We agree the weighting with you at the start, and the ones that do not apply are marked as such rather than quietly skipped.
Master data and FS item architecture
FS items, subitems, hierarchies, consolidation units and groups, and whether they support the reporting asked of them.
ACDOCU and data flow
How data reaches the consolidation journal, what is posted where, and whether the lineage from source to reported figure can be followed.
Currency translation
Rate types and ownership, average versus closing versus historical treatment, and where CTA is actually coming from.
Intercompany and eliminations
Partner data quality, matching, tolerance, the differences that survive, and who clears them.
Ownership and investment consolidation
Multi-level and indirect NCI, method changes, acquisitions and disposals part-way through a period.
Data Monitor and Consolidation Monitor
Task sequence, dependencies, what is genuinely automated and what is a person remembering to do something.
Controls and reconciliation
Validation design, blocking versus warning, and whether the reconciliation evidence would satisfy an auditor asking six months later.
Performance and close-cycle friction
Runtime, rerun cost, and the points where the close waits on something it should not.
Reporting architecture
What is reported from where, duplicated logic, and whether the numbers in two places agree by design or by luck.
Security and governance
Access model, segregation, change control and who is allowed to alter what.
Maintainability and debt
Custom logic, undocumented decisions, workarounds, and how much of the solution only one person understands.
What you get
Findings you can act on, not a list of observations.
- Executive summary with a Red / Amber / Green assessment by area
- Finding register with severity, evidence, impact and recommendation
- Design risks and control gaps, stated plainly
- Quick wins separated from structural remediation
- Prioritised 30/60/90-day action plan, or a pre-go-live remediation plan
- Playback session with finance and programme stakeholders
Every finding carries a severity, the evidence behind it and a recommendation. Where we cannot substantiate something within the time box, we say so rather than grading it on impression — a health check that inflates its own findings is worse than none.
Why independent matters here
We are not reviewing our own work, and not bidding to rebuild it.
A review carried out by the firm that built the solution, or by one hoping to replace it, has a predictable shape. Radixa is not an SAP partner or reseller, and a health check is sold as a health check — if the answer is that the solution is basically sound and needs three specific fixes, that is the answer you get.
Related
Where this sits.
- SAP S/4HANA Group Reporting — the full lifecycle service, where remediation goes beyond a fix list
- Consolidation Design & Architecture — if the review concludes the design itself needs rework
- Programme Assurance & Optimisation — the same discipline applied across a whole programme rather than one solution
- About Radixa — how we work, and the experience behind the advice
Next step
Tell us what prompted the question.
A specific concern, an approaching go-live, a close that was harder than it should have been, or simply the wish for a second opinion. That tells us which of the three packages fits.