# Accounting practice: 3x reconciliation throughput across 22 staff

Source: https://getstartedwithai.net/case-studies/accounting-practice-22-staff-three-x-throughput
Site: Get Started With AI
Tagline: Build AI automations that actually run your business.
Audience: solo professionals, freelancers, consultants and AI implementers in training
Contact: hello@getstartedwithai.co.uk

This Markdown companion is generated from the prerendered page for AI crawlers.
# Accounting practice: 3x reconciliation throughput across 22 staff

A 22-staff accounting practice had three processes the partners thought were documented. The audit found two were not, and the inconsistency between them was the real cost. After fixing the readiness gap, seven automations were shipped over four months and signed off under one named owner.

## The readiness gap

Before any automation was built, the audit found three structural problems. Two processes the partners believed were documented were not. Two data sources were inconsistent across systems. The partners had assumed the work was easier to automate than it was, because they had not run a documentation pass first.

## The build sequence

Over four months, seven automations were shipped in order of fastest win first. Each one used the same Audit-Identify-Run-Embed sequence with the same handover format. The seventh build went live three months after the first.

- Build 1: bank reconciliation triage. The fastest win and the trust signal.
- Build 2: client document chasing. Reduced manual chase emails to near zero.
- Build 3: month-end checklist generator. Replaced a Word document maintained by hand.
- Build 4: client onboarding pack. Cut onboarding from 90 minutes per client to 15.
- Build 5: Companies House watchlist. Caught two filing risks the team had previously missed.
- Build 6: VAT return drafting. Halved the time per return at peak month.
- Build 7: weekly partner review. The compounding build that closed the loop.

## The outcome

- 3x reconciliation throughput across the practice.
- Seven automations running under one named owner, twelve months in.
- None have drifted. The Bus Test holds: the named owner is not the builder.
- The £60k of practice time freed has been redirected, not cut.

## See this kind of build run live

The free webinar walks through the WIRE Method end to end on a real audience workflow. 60 minutes, no upsell. Bring one repeatable task; leave with a mapped automation.

### Live build session

The next live build session covers the same shape as the case studies on this page.

[Join the next session](/webinar)

## Questions people ask before they start

### Why one named owner and not seven?

A single owner across all seven builds keeps the governance light. Each automation has the same review cadence and the same handover document, so the owner spends 30 minutes a month checking all of them at once instead of seven times.

### What stops drift over twelve months?

The monthly review and a written behaviour standard. The Four Breaks pattern is checked at every review: trigger break, data drift, process drift, volume drift. Anything starting to slip is caught before it becomes an outage.

### Did the team need to be trained?

Yes. Each build had a 30-minute handover session with the team, and the named owner went through the practitioner handover document. The training cost was modest because every build used the same shape.