System and method for automated comprehensive reconciliation processing
View Patent ↗A system and method of reconciliation processing that automates multiple steps of data validation. One of the key steps of reconciliation is the review and validation of the input and outputs. An embodiment of this invention includes the maintenance of an automated checklist of the various reconciliation steps, which enables maintaining an audit trail and the generation of metrics. A web-based system can be implemented to achieve the objectives of improving the reconciliation process and utilizing computerized controls.
1. A method comprising:
comparing, by a computer-based system for reconciliation of accounts, input data to master data, wherein a defect is identified in response to the input data not being equal to the master data;
assigning, by the computer-based system, a first code in response to the input data not being equal to the master data, wherein the first code corresponds to a type of difference between the input data and the master data;
assigning, by the computer-based system, a second code in response to the input data not being equal to the master data, wherein the second code corresponds to a corrective action to reconcile the difference between the input data and the master data;
comparing, by the computer-based system, an input data received date to a first due date;
generating, by the computer-based system, a first plurality of notification messages in response to the input data received date being later than the first due date;
escalating, by the computer-based system, a first action associated with the input data received date being later than the first due date, wherein the first action is escalated according to a predetermined process associated with at least one of the first code and the second code;
comparing, by the computer-based system, an input data reviewed date to a second due date;
generating, by the computer-based system, a second plurality of notification messages in response to the input data reviewed date being later than the second due date;
escalating, by the computer-based system, a second action associated with the input data reviewed date being later than the second due date, wherein the second action is escalated according to a predetermined process associated with at least one of the first code and the second code; and
generating, by the computer-based system, a third plurality of notification messages in response to the defect being detected in the input data.
2. The method of claim 1 , further comprising receiving, by the computer-based system, the input data.
3. The method of claim 1 , further comprising presenting, by the computer-based system, a web-based checklist based on at least one of the first code and the second code and configured to enable review of the input data.
4. The method of claim 1 , further comprising receiving, by the computer-based system, a revised input data that corrects the defect in the input data.
5. The method of claim 4 , further comprising generating, by the computer-based system, a fourth plurality of notification messages when the revised input is not received.
6. The method of claim 1 , further comprising generating, by the computer-based system, a report identifying a defect in the input data.
7. The method of claim 1 , further comprising updating, by the computer-based system, an account status, wherein the account status is one of: reconciled and unreconciled.
8. The method of claim 1 , further comprising presenting, by the computer-based system, a quality review checklist that enables alteration of an account status.
9. The method of claim 8 , wherein the account status is updated to reconciled where at least one of: there are no differences between a general ledger balance and a balance associated with the input data, the root cause code and action plan code are identified at an account level, and no defect associated with the account is open beyond a third due date.
10. The method of claim 1 , wherein the defect is associated with a defect metric, and the defect metric is at least one of: critical to process and critical to quality.
11. The method of claim 1 , wherein the defect is associated with a defect metric, and wherein the defect metric is critical to process in response to the input data being at least one of: not received by a service level agreement (“SLA”) date, not received prior to the first due date, incomplete, inaccurate, and not compliant with a data format standard.
12. The method of claim 1 , wherein the defect is associated with a defect metric, and wherein the defect metric is critical to process in response to at least one of: the input data being provided from a plurality of general ledgers and the input data not matching data associated with a trial balance list, there is a change in an average number of reconciling items, a transaction cannot be matched automatically, research being required to reconcile the input data, the root cause code cannot be assigned, and the input data representing a potential exposure.
13. The method of claim 1 , wherein the defect is associated with a defect metric, and wherein the defect metric is critical to quality in response to at least one of: an account status being unreconciled, an account status being reconciled out of balance, and an account status being reconciled with rework.
14. The method of claim 1 , wherein generating the third plurality of notification messages further comprises an escalation procedure.
15. An article of manufacture including a computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by a computer-based system for reconciliation of accounts, cause the computer-based system to perform operations comprising:
comparing, by the computer-based system, input data to master data, wherein a defect is identified in response to the input data not being equal to the master data;
assigning, by the computer-based system, a first code in response to the input data not being equal to the master data, wherein the first code corresponds to a type of difference between the input data and the master data;
assigning, by the computer-based system, a second code in response to the input data not being equal to the master data, wherein the second code corresponds to a corrective action to reconcile the difference between the input data and the master data;
comparing by the computer-based system, an input data received date to a first due date;
generating, by the computer-based system, a first plurality of notification messages in response to the input data received date being later than the first due date;
escalating, by the computer-based system, a first action associated with the input data received date being later than the first due date, wherein the first action is escalated according to a predetermined process associated with at least one of the first code and the second code;
comparing, by the computer-based system, an input data reviewed date to a second due date;
generating, by the computer-based system, a second plurality of notification messages in response to the input data reviewed date being later than the second due date;
escalating, by the computer-based system, a second action associated with the input data reviewed date being later than the second due date, wherein the second action is escalated according to a predetermined process associated with at least one of the first code and the second code; and
generating, by the computer-based system, a third plurality of notification messages in response to the defect being detected in the input data.
16. A system comprising:
a tangible, non-transitory memory communicating with a processor for reconciliation of accounts,
the tangible, non-transitory memory having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
comparing, by the processor, input data to master data, wherein a defect is identified in response to the input data not being equal to the master data;
assigning, by the processor, a first code in response to the input data not being equal to the master data, wherein the first code corresponds to a type of difference between the input data and the master data;
assigning, by the processor, a second code in response to the input data not being equal to the master data, wherein the second code corresponds to a corrective action to reconcile the difference between the input data and the master data;
comparing by the processor, an input data received date to a first due date;
generating, by the processor, a first plurality of notification messages in response to the input data received date being later than the first due date;
escalating, by the processor, a first action associated with the input data received date being later than the first due date, wherein the first action is escalated according to a predetermined process associated with at least one of the first code and the second code;
comparing, by the processor, an input data reviewed date to a second due date;
generating, by the processor, a second plurality of notification messages in response to the input data reviewed date being later than the second due date;
escalating, by the processor, a second action associated with the input data reviewed date being later than the second due date, wherein the second action is escalated according to a predetermined process associated with at least one of the first code and the second code; and
generating, by the processor, a third plurality of notification messages in response to the defect being detected in the input data.