A new finance leader inherits an accounting provider

A new finance leader should first establish what the accounting provider is expected to deliver next, what information is still needed, and who is approving the work. Start with imminent reporting, payroll, payment, and filing commitments. Changing a relationship before understanding those dependencies can create avoidable uncertainty.

Meet the provider's delivery lead and the internal people who supply records. Ask each for the same short list: current responsibilities, unfinished work, expected dates, and decisions waiting on management. Differences between the lists are useful evidence about the operating arrangement.

Confirm your authority and the contact changes with the provider. Update the appropriate approval and escalation routes, while checking whether any existing authorization needs a separate change. The team should know which decisions now reach you and which remain with other managers.

Read the agreement, amendments, recent invoices, and deliverables together. Identify recurring work, project work, exclusions, and assumptions about the company's own staffing. Compare those terms with what people believe the provider does. An inherited service can accumulate informal expectations that were never priced or accepted.

The AICPA Member Insurance Programs' client-continuance guidance identifies management changes and evolving business circumstances as reasons to reassess a professional relationship. That guidance is written for CPA firms. From the client side, your arrival is an appropriate moment to compare the engagement with the company's present needs.

Ask what has changed since the service was agreed: entities, transaction patterns, reporting uses, systems, internal staff, or technical complexity. Do not assume that a provider's earlier performance proves it is equipped for every new requirement, or that a changed requirement means the earlier service was defective.

Choose a recent normal period and, if available, a period with a meaningful exception. Review the output and the evidence behind it with someone competent to assess the work. Ask how significant balances were reconciled, who reviewed adjustments, which issues remained open, and how management was informed.

Follow one question from request to resolution. The path may reveal whether delays came from missing company information, unclear ownership, provider capacity, or a technical issue. Record the observed cause and avoid reducing the whole relationship to a single complaint or a polished reporting pack.

Use a review sheet that separates fact, explanation, and next action. The following examples illustrate the distinction; they are not findings about any particular provider.

Give the delivery team space to explain what makes the engagement difficult. Ask which information arrives late, which approvals are unclear, and which tasks require expertise or capacity outside the current arrangement. Listen for specific examples that can be checked.

AICPA Member Insurance Programs' lifecycle guidance describes ongoing evaluation as circumstances and services change, including operational capacity and scope risks. Use the discussion to identify the changes both sides need to make. A productive review can lead to a revised engagement, additional controls, or a planned transition, depending on the evidence.

Compare the provider's account with the internal team's experience. Resolve factual disagreements before committing to a large remedy. If both sides agree that management responses are the main delay, replacing the firm without changing that process may reproduce the problem.

Put matters affecting an imminent obligation, consequential decision, or reliability of current records into an immediate action list. Give each an owner and a clear completion condition. Escalate suspected serious misconduct or technical issues to the appropriate qualified adviser rather than waiting for the routine relationship review.

Keep improvement projects on a separate schedule. A new reporting layout, expanded analysis, or revised meeting cadence may be worthwhile without requiring an immediate system change. Sequence work according to dependency and capacity so the review does not overwhelm the team responsible for the next close.

For a hypothetical example, the business wants both a department reporting redesign and resolution of an unexplained cash balance. Address the cash evidence and its reporting implications first. Schedule the presentation redesign once the underlying records and ownership are understood.

Write a short assessment of the current service, evidence reviewed, unresolved limitations, and agreed changes. State why you are retaining, modifying, supplementing, or replacing the arrangement. Include the next review point and what observable improvement or completion will be assessed.

Share the relevant action plan with the provider and internal owners. Confirm changes to scope, fees, responsibilities, or dates in the appropriate written agreement. Your first review should leave a more understandable accounting function, with decisions supported by the work you examined rather than by inherited sentiment.