The same analysis can lead to a different final deliverable depending on the working relationship with the client and who needs the results explained to them.
In Brief
At large corporations, advisory work involved considerable time preparing internal reports and coordinating with the people involved, in addition to examining the issue itself. At startups, direct participation by the CFO or CEO sometimes made it feel as though the company and the accounting firm were working as one team. Those differences in relationships and communication also shaped the work and its final deliverable.
The differences between large corporations and startups can feel more immediate when an accounting firm acts as an adviser rather than an auditor. What the client expects, who joins the discussion and where the results will be used all have a substantial effect on the work.
The differences I experienced concerned both the format of the report and the relationship in which I was working as an external professional.
1. The external provider
On assignments at large corporations, I sometimes felt that my position was that of an external provider expected to meet specified requirements. Alongside discussing our analysis, we had to prepare the reporting material the client requested and work around the schedules of several people.
A significant share of the accounting firm’s time went into reports and meeting preparation. Completing the analysis did not finish the assignment. We still had to prepare material to explain it to other people, incorporate changes arising from internal review and prepare for further meetings.
There is a reason for this from the finance team’s perspective. If it has paid a substantial fee to an accounting firm, it needs to explain to management what was commissioned and what the company gained. Matters already understood between the client team and the accounting firm need to be explained again to people who were not involved. The report therefore carries both the technical conclusion and an account of the external assignment’s results into the organisation. At times, the reporting and explanation felt substantial relative to the underlying analysis.
2. A shared objective
I experienced a different atmosphere at startups. The CFO or CEO often approached the accounting firm directly, explained the problem they wanted to resolve and took an active part in the discussion.
When a company with limited funds decided to pay for external expertise, it sometimes had a particularly clear idea of the result it wanted. The assignment was connected to an immediate challenge, such as IPO preparation or an accounting issue. In those circumstances, I sometimes felt that the company and the accounting firm were working as one team. Management knew the background and participated in the necessary judgements, which made it easier to work closely together in explaining the problem and agreeing how to resolve it.
Reporting material played a different role too. If the CFO had participated throughout, there was less need to prepare material to explain the discussions again to management. Sometimes a Word document setting out the issues, findings and required actions was enough, without a carefully designed PowerPoint presentation.
3. The reader
Differences in deliverables are connected to what the reader already knows and what they need to do. For a CFO involved from the beginning, the conclusion and remaining actions may be what matters. Executives encountering the project for the first time may need an explanation of why the issue arose, which alternatives were considered and how it affects the company. There is therefore no fixed rule that a large corporation needs a long report and a startup a short memorandum. A startup briefing its board or investors also needs sufficient background, while material for a well-informed team at a large corporation can be concise.
The same analysis can be organised around its intended use as follows.
| Reader | Information needed | Possible format |
|---|---|---|
| Decision-maker | Recommendation, available alternatives and implications for the company | Decision brief |
| Technical reviewer | Facts, assumptions, analysis and the basis for the judgement | Technical memorandum |
| Person implementing the recommendation | Tasks, responsibilities, timing and checks | Implementation plan |
Even a short document needs to retain the assumptions and reasoning that affect its conclusion. Someone who was not part of the conversation should still be able to understand what was examined and the conditions on which the conclusion rests.
4. Coordination time
Coordination was another time-consuming part of assignments at large corporations. There were meetings to arrange across departments, views to obtain from different managers and revisions to circulate. That process is needed when advice affects several departments or systems. What has been agreed with one person may be difficult to implement elsewhere in the organisation, and further discussion may reveal implications that have not yet been considered.
For the external accounting firm, all of that time is part of the work. Looking only at the time needed for the technical analysis makes it difficult to anticipate the full reporting and meeting burden. The client’s organisational structure affects the scope of the assignment and the time it requires.
At the startups I worked with, these processes were sometimes shorter because the CFO and relevant employees discussed matters together. The advantage of having the people involved close at hand was apparent in how the work progressed.
5. The price of scale
The differences explored across these four articles concern organisational size and the ways people work within those organisations.
Large corporations had experienced people and systems built over many years. I clearly felt their strengths in preparing information and carrying out complex work. At startups, there was an atmosphere in which people could communicate closely with decision-makers and work flexibly towards a shared objective.
The atmosphere and flexibility of smaller organisations particularly stayed with me. Even where large corporations were ahead in the sophistication of their outputs or internal capabilities, the ability to speak directly with the relevant people and agree a direction together seemed harder to sustain in a large organisation.
As a company grows, it may need more security and reporting, clearer responsibilities and more review procedures. Those arrangements help it operate at scale, but the people doing the work may also experience them as additional time spent explaining and coordinating.
That is the price of scale explored in this series. As a company develops the people and systems it needs for growth, how much of a small organisation’s close communication and flexibility can it retain? Working across large corporations and startups has left me with that question.
Key Takeaways
- In advisory work, the relationship between the client and the external professional, and the way management participates, influence the working atmosphere.
- A deliverable should provide the explanations needed by the people who will actually read and use it.
- The time an assignment requires includes internal reporting and coordination as well as technical analysis.
- Maintaining close communication alongside the structures that support growth remains a challenge.