The files are complete. But do they reflect what happens?

The file is complete: signed contracts, job descriptions, internal rules, filled-in timesheets. The gap shows up when you compare them with an ordinary working day. The job description covers a role the person left behind long ago, approvals travel through a different channel than the written procedure, and timesheets are filled in at the end of the month from memory.

Gaps can appear when roles and processes change while the paperwork stays behind.

Accept that the review does not end at whether the document exists. A complete file shows that something was done at some point, not that it applies today.

Everything else follows from that: the match with practice is checked before any conclusions, and the resulting list is ordered by exposure rather than by the order in which findings came up.

We choose a sample and explain why: roles from different areas, people whose hours or responsibilities changed recently, a few recent hires. We do not check everything; we check where the gaps have the most reasons to appear.

For each case we put the document next to the process: what the job description says and what the person does, how approvals are given on paper and how they are given in reality, how timesheets are filled in and who confirms them. Every gap gets an owner and a deadline agreed with that owner, not imposed by the report.

After implementation we come back and re-check the same points, against practice as it stands then. See how we work on audits

How many fixes were actually closed by the agreed deadline and how many stayed open, with the reason. At the re-check, whether practice changed and not only the document. And recurrence: the same gap appearing again calls for a review of the update process and of who is responsible for it.

Does this sound familiar?

Tell us what is not working. That is where we start.

Discuss your situation →