Is this the new standard.

[IanF]

I have just been asked to reissue invoices for a customer.
Why we had the postal code as 1685 and it should be 1684. I replied to the email that they are joking.
The accountant then phoned me and said for audit purposes every detail had to be 100%. She couldn't answer why the invoice is not reasonably correct and said she has had things thrown back at her is there is a discrepancy in the address as it is not 100% correct.

I can not believe the bullying and can see why accountants and auditors manage to give themselves a bad rep.
Anyway rant over and I have updated the database.

[Dave A]

I have just been asked to reissue invoices for a customer.
Why we had the postal code as 1685 and it should be 1684. I replied to the email that they are joking.
The accountant then phoned me and said for audit purposes every detail had to be 100%. She couldn't answer why the invoice is not reasonably correct and said she has had things thrown back at her is there is a discrepancy in the address as it is not 100% correct.

I can not believe the bullying and can see why accountants and auditors manage to give themselves a bad rep.

It's not all about tax compliance, or even regulatory compliance. Part of what top management expect from their auditors is feedback at a systems level, and I've always appreciated that feedback. A lack of attention to detail in one area left unchecked tends to spill over to other areas...

Attention to detail is a habit, and at times it needs to be reinforced. Generally the best way isn't to hammer everything, (which just creates a sense of hysteria), but to focus on one thing at a time. Then move onto the next thing (while keeping the last check in place), and then the next. Typically once you've got to the third focal point, results start showing across all areas.

[IanF]

I still feel that the maxim
"Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools." is spot on.
You can not get everything right all the time, so you have to make compromises if some of the detail is not 100%. The trick is to find the wise men to deal with.

[tec0]

I have just been asked to reissue invoices for a customer.
Why we had the postal code as 1685 and it should be 1684. I replied to the email that they are joking.
The accountant then phoned me and said for audit purposes every detail had to be 100%. She couldn't answer why the invoice is not reasonably correct and said she has had things thrown back at her is there is a discrepancy in the address as it is not 100% correct.

I can not believe the bullying and can see why accountants and auditors manage to give themselves a bad rep.
Anyway rant over and I have updated the database.

I don's suppose you can bill them for your troubles?

When I still worked in the public domain we had a constant bugger up and late payments was always due to some oversight. But I couldn't help noticing that the oversight was almost always at the client side.

Your own example here... They only now notice the address problem now? I am with you on this one I would also be mad. Couldn't they just phoned you from day one invoice one and say sorry I think there is a mistake it must be this and not that...

[IanF]

This all seems to be sorted now, what the real problem was is our standard quote letter asks for a 70% deposit unless you have an account. They paid 70% with the order so the invoice didn't match the 2 payments unless you added the payments together.

I must look at different quote letters one for existing customers and one for new customers.

[Marq]

Typically once you've got to the third focal point, results start showing across all areas.

Had to laugh here, Dave - saw the negative side of the flowchart, which had an arrow going back to point one.

The new standard is flawed, in that the general level of employee knowledge and skill base, does not have a good understanding of the basics of why systems are in place and why certain processes and procedures have to be adhered to.

Back to basics and better potty training, would go a long way to maintaining standards instead of redefining them.

Bring back a proper system of apprenticing, journeymen, articles etc with proper mentoring and time spent on the job doing the basics and we will see a development of skills and thought patterns to maintain and better business and trade processes.

[Dave A]

Back to basics and better potty training, would go a long way to maintaining standards instead of redefining them.

That's exactly where I go first

And it's so effective. When they ask - why are you hammering this basic stuff? (complete with indignant look implying you're treating them like babies), you answer
"because it isn't being done consistently. And until the basics are right, there's no sense in getting into more advanced stuff".

saw the negative side of the flowchart, which had an arrow going back to point one.

Frustrating, isn't it.