A GAP Analysis is a structured review that compares your current state (the "as-is" state) against a desired standard or goal (the "to-be" state). The difference is the "gap" that needs to be closed.

The core benefit is providing a clear, prioritized roadmap. It helps you quantify resource needs, establish project scope, and strategically allocate capital to achieve compliance, efficiency, or operational targets.

We analyze four main gap types: Performance Gaps (efficiency issues), Compliance Gaps (regulatory risks), Process Gaps (missing workflow steps), and Skill Gaps (missing competencies) .

We define the current state through detailed process mapping, interviews, system reviews, and data analysis of actual day-to-day operations and performance metrics.

The desired state is defined by a target standard, which could be a recognized framework (e.g., IFRS, US GAAP, ISO 27001), industry best practice, or your internal strategic goal.

It identifies the necessary changes required for your current operational models to successfully comply with the new accounting, tax, or regulatory environment of the target country (e.g., entering the EU market.

Yes. By identifying the largest process gaps that could be closed with technology, the analysis provides a data-driven justification for ERP upgrades, automation tools, or new system implementations.

We cover frameworks such as IFRS/US GAAP adoption, GDPR (Europe), HIPAA (USA), SOX/J-SOX controls, and local tax compliance rules (VAT/GST) .

The report provides: 1. Gap Identification, 2. Risk/Impact Assessment (quantifying the cost/risk of the gap), and 3. Remediation Roadmap (prioritized actions, owners, and timelines) .

We require access to Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), relevant financial data, organizational charts, system access logs, and process flow diagrams.

We compare the "as-is" process in each entity (e.g., USA, UK, Far East) against a singular, recommended "best practice" process ("to-be"), highlighting local deviations that need standardization.

It covers both. We analyze Process Gaps (workflow sequence) and Control Gaps (missing authorizations, lack of monitoring) within those processes.

We employ a structured methodology involving data collection, quantitative measurement, process mapping (visualization) comparative analysis, and structured reporting.

Depending on the scope (e.g., one department vs. full SOX compliance), an engagement usually takes between 4 and 8 weeks to complete the data collection, analysis, and final report delivery.

Yes. For performance-related gaps (e.g., long P2P cycle), we estimate the quantifiable impact, such as reduced labor cost, accelerated cash flow, or avoided penalties.

A Critical Gap poses an immediate, high risk to compliance, financial accuracy, or operational viability. A Minor Gap represents an efficiency loss or non-material risk. We prioritize the critical gaps first.

Our Compliance GAP Analysis (e.g., SOX preparation) directly informs your external auditors, demonstrating management's proactive efforts to maintain a strong control environment.

Yes. While the analysis is diagnostic, we offer a separate Implementation Support service to help you close the identified gaps through process redesign and control deployment.

By systematically identifying weaknesses in processes or controls, we mitigate risks related to fraud, regulatory penalties, material misstatement, and operational failures.

We use the People, Process, Technology model, assessing the gaps in each area and their interdependencies for a holistic view of the problem.

.

Yes. We specialize in producing reports that validate the complex logic and allocation entries related to WIP, COGS, and IFRS 15/ASC 606 revenue recognition, ensuring calculations are compliant.

.

This report provides an itemized check of the system's ability to maintain data accuracy, primarily by reconciling subsidiary ledger balances (e.g., A/R, A/P) to the General Ledger balance .

 .

.

 .

.

.

.

.

.

It compares your current accounting policies and presentation (e.g., US GAAP or local standards) against the full requirements of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), detailing necessary adjustments.

A detailed schedule of accounting policy differences, required system changes (e.g., GL accounts), and the estimated financial restatement impact on your Balance Sheet and Income Statement.

Yes. We analyze your current revenue recognition process against the complex five-step model, focusing on identifying performance obligations and handling variable consideration estimates.

We compare your existing internal controls documentation and testing against the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) Sections 302 and 404, focusing on financial reporting risks.

We review financial systems and processes (e.g., payroll, customer master data) to identify gaps in data consent, data minimization, lawful basis for processing, and data breach response.

Yes. We compare your current practices against specific US GAAP requirements, particularly for areas like lease accounting (ASC 842) and complex equity transactions.

We review your tax coding within the ERP system, invoice generation processes, and reporting workflows against local statutory requirements for VAT/GST declarations.

We analyze the process for setting and reviewing inter-company pricing against OECD guidelines and local tax requirements, identifying gaps in documentation and defensibility.

Yes. We compare your current documentation for estimates (e.g., warranty accrual, impairment analysis) against auditor expectations for reasonable, supported judgments.

We compare your existing COA against leading practice and reporting requirements (e.g., IFRS/US GAAP), identifying gaps in structure that hinder efficient reporting and analysis.

A recommended "To-Be" COA structure that accommodates legal, managerial, and regulatory reporting requirements simultaneously, minimizing manual data manipulation.

Yes. We map the entire close cycle, identifying delays, manual dependencies, and control failures, benchmarking your close time against industry best practices.

We use interviews, process walkthroughs, and competency assessments to compare the skills of current staff against the technical and analytical needs of the future finance function.

It compares your fixed asset tracking, physical verification, and depreciation policy against accounting standards and best practices for control and accuracy.

We compare your current controls (e.g., change management, user access) against frameworks like COBIT or COSO, focusing on risks that could lead to financial statement errors.

We analyze the process gaps in protecting financial records, system access, and data transfer against frameworks like NIST or ISO 27001.

It assesses the quality, timeliness, and relevance of reports (MIS) provided to management, identifying gaps where key information is missing or misleading.

We review your current costing methodology (e.g., FIFO, Weighted Average) and provisions for obsolescence against IFRS/US GAAP to identify valuation gaps.

We compare your current forecasting process and accuracy against best practices, identifying gaps in input data, methodology, and forecast variance reconciliation.

It assesses the process for identifying, documenting, and disclosing all related party transactions in compliance with accounting standards (IAS 24 / ASC 850) .

We analyze the P2P cycle (requisition, PO, receipt, invoicing, payment) to identify gaps that lead to non-compliance (missing POs), cost overruns, or inefficient payment cycles.

We map the O2C cycle (order entry, credit check, fulfillment, billing, collection) to find bottlenecks that extend Days Sales Outstanding (DSO) or cause revenue leakage.

Yes. We compare the system's capabilities (the "to-be") against how your users actually execute processes (the "as-is"), identifying unused features or reliance on manual workarounds.

A list of features that, if implemented, would close significant process or control gaps, providing a quick ROI on your existing system investment.

It defines the system requirements by clearly documenting the needed "to-be" state functions and controls that the new system must provide to close the current process and data gaps.

It identifies users who have conflicting access rights within the ERP or finance system, creating a vulnerability that can lead to fraud or error.

We assess the processes for creating, maintaining, and updating critical master data (Vendor, Customer, Item) against best practices for data quality and integrity.

We identify gaps in the financial processes and controls that must be updated when migrating from on-premise systems to cloud-based environments.

We compare your current budgeting method (e.g., incremental) against strategic best practices (e.g., ZBB), identifying gaps in accuracy, participation, and alignment with strategy.

We focus on the hire-to-retire cycle, identifying gaps in timely data exchange for payroll, benefits administration, and proper accrual of employee liabilities .

We compare your current electronic signature procedures against global legal standards (e.g., eIDAS in Europe) to ensure the records maintain legal admissibility.

Yes. We identify data exchange gaps between CRM and ERP that lead to discrepancies in billing, revenue recognition, and commission calculations.

 We compare your current T&E submission, approval, and reimbursement process against industry best practices for efficiency and policy compliance .

It determines if your current costing methods accurately reflect the true consumption of resources by activities, identifying gaps that lead to distorted product profitability reports.

We review the frequency, methodology, and control around inter-company matching, identifying gaps that cause delays in the Monthly close and audit issues.

Yes. We compare the current DR strategy and testing against business continuity requirements to ensure financial data and systems can be quickly restored after a disruption.

We measure the time from invoice receipt to payment, identifying bottlenecks in approval and matching that hinder cash management and payment discount utilization.

We review the cycle counting, physical security, and system adjustment processes to identify control gaps that contribute to unexplained inventory loss.

We identify gaps in the process for tracking key contract milestones, renewal dates, and performance obligations that affect financial reporting.

We limit the scope to quantifiable, specific GAPs and ensure every remediation recommendation includes a clear owner, timeline, and measurable success metric.

Daily support involves continuous monitoring of specific system controls (e.g., Daily batch jobs, high-risk GL account postings) to immediately flag and analyze any control operation gap.

Weekly deliverables include a Continuous Control Monitoring Report, summarizing any process deviations or policy non-compliance identified during the week's transactions.

It provides the rapid feedback needed to quickly implement and test the effectiveness of new controls or process changes aimed at closing a specific gap.

Monthly service typically focuses on a review of the full Month-End Close Package against the required standards, identifying closing procedure or control gaps.

It allows for early detection of systemic reporting gaps that could lead to material misstatements if only addressed at Yearly end.

Quarterly service often involves a deep-dive review of the Segregation of Duties (SOD) matrix and a formal assessment of progress against the major Compliance GAP remediation roadmap.

The Quarterly review provides the Audit Committee or Board with an objective assessment of the control environment's status and the execution of high-priority remediation plans.

Half-Yearly deliverables include a full Risk Register Update based on observed gaps and a comprehensive review of the ongoing process improvement projects.

Yearly service focuses on a Comprehensive Pre-Audit Control Review, identifying and remediating all potential control gaps before the arrival of external auditors.

We perform a formal Validation Audit (or follow-up review) at an agreed-upon interval (e.g., 6 months) to confirm the new process or control has successfully closed the original gap.

Yes. We tailor the frequency; high-risk areas (e.g., cash) can receive Weekly monitoring, while lower-risk areas (e.g., fixed asset policy) may be reviewed Yearly.

We utilize specialized Audit Data Analytics (ADA) software to automatically apply business rules to your transactional data, flagging control violations in near real-time.

Yes. A key outcome of our analysis is a recommendation on how to update or create new SOPs to embed the "to-be" process and ensure sustainability.

Our remediation roadmap includes a Change Management Plan, focusing on clear communication, training, and involving key process owners in the design of the "to-be" state.

The final report is supported by evidence, including process maps, transaction samples, interview summaries, and quantitative data analysis outputs.

Priority is determined by the combination of Impact (Severity) and Likelihood (Frequency) of the gap, using a standard risk matrix (High, Medium, Low).

Yes. We offer rapid Ad-Hoc services to perform a Root Cause Analysis and GAP Analysis on a recent control failure or process breakdown.

The first step is a Scoping Workshop to clearly define the boundary, target standard ("to-be"), key stakeholders, and the required depth of analysis.

Our analysis uses cross-border regulatory checklists derived from our expertise in multiple target markets (USA, EU, UK, Middle East), ensuring findings are globally applicable.

Yes. We estimate the effort (man-hours/cost) and duration required to implement the proposed changes, enabling a cost-benefit analysis.