By Sergio Ermacora.
Busy season creates a familiar constraint for CPA firms: production volume can rise quickly, but experienced reviewers do not multiply with it. Adding remote or temporary accountants can relieve the workload. Done poorly, however, extra capacity can simply move the bottleneck downstream by creating more questions, inconsistent workpapers and avoidable rework.
The goal is not to add hours. It is to add reviewable production capacity while partners and managers retain ownership of professional judgment, client advice and final sign-off. Firms can achieve that by designing the engagement around the review process before assigning the first return, reconciliation or workpaper.
Start With Work That Can Be Defined and Reviewed
The best first assignments are recurring, documentable and supported by clear source information. Depending on the practice and applicable requirements, that may include account reconciliations, workpaper preparation, bookkeeping review, trial-balance cleanup, financial-statement preparation or defined portions of tax-production work.
Before adding capacity, document five things:
- the expected deliverable;
- the source documents and approved systems;
- the firm’s documentation standard;
- the person responsible for review; and
- the issues that must be escalated rather than resolved independently.
If experienced employees cannot explain an assignment consistently, a new remote team member will not make it more consistent. This onboarding exercise often exposes process gaps the firm should correct regardless of who performs the work.
Separate Preparation From Professional Judgment
Remote support works best when responsibility is explicit. A preparer may organize source documents, complete reconciliations, draft schedules, identify exceptions and document open questions. A manager or partner should retain responsibility for material judgments, client advice, approvals and final sign-off.
This is not a limitation unique to remote talent. It is a control principle that should apply to every new team member. Distributed work simply makes ambiguity visible sooner.
A basic responsibility matrix can prevent most confusion. For each deliverable, identify who prepares, reviews, approves and communicates with the client. Also define matters requiring immediate escalation, such as inconsistent records, unusual transactions, missing support, possible fraud indicators or conclusions that depart from firm policy.
Test for Reviewability, Not Just Technical Knowledge
Resumes and certifications provide useful background, but they do not show how efficiently someone will operate within the firm’s review process. A realistic work sample is usually more informative.
Give the candidate a small assignment resembling the actual work, including some incomplete or conflicting information. Evaluate whether the person:
- identifies missing support;
- documents assumptions;
- separates facts from conclusions;
- produces a file another professional can review;
- explains the work clearly in writing and in a short live discussion; and
- escalates uncertainty instead of guessing.
The strongest candidate is not necessarily the one who finishes fastest. It is the one whose work reduces uncertainty for the reviewer.
Build Security and Communication Controls Into Onboarding
Remote access should follow the same least-privilege principle used for employees and contractors generally. Provide only the systems and client files required for assigned work. Use firm-managed accounts, multifactor authentication and documented offboarding procedures. Client information should remain within approved tools and workflows, subject to the firm’s security policies, contractual obligations and applicable professional requirements.
Communication rules matter just as much. Define working-hour overlap, response expectations, check-in frequency and the channel for urgent questions. During the first assignments, short feedback loops are more useful than long status meetings because reviewers can correct the process before the same issue appears across dozens of files.
Measure Whether Capacity Is Actually Increasing
Hours worked and tasks completed do not show whether the model is helping. A more useful pilot scorecard tracks:
- reviewer time per engagement;
- first-pass acceptance and rework rates;
- turnaround time;
- number and quality of escalations;
- documentation completeness;
- deadline performance; and
- partner or manager time returned to client-facing work.
Start with a limited set of engagements and compare results with the firm’s normal baseline. Review time may initially rise during onboarding, but it should decline as documentation, feedback and role clarity improve. If it does not, adjust the scope, training or talent match before expanding the engagement.
Make Review More Focused, Not Less Important
The safest busy-season staffing model does not bypass review. It makes review more focused. Preparers handle defined execution, document what they did and surface exceptions early. Experienced firm professionals spend their time on judgment, client context and final approval.
When firms define the work, test for reviewability, control access and measure the effect on reviewer time, distributed talent can add capacity without weakening professional standards. The result is more than additional output. It is a more deliberate operating model for the period when the firm has the least room for ambiguity.
====
Sergio Ermacora is co-founder and COO of Nexteam, which helps companies and professional-services firms add pre-vetted finance and accounting professionals for dedicated, fractional and project-based work.
Sign in to get access to this free resource, and all of our whitepapers and reports.
Download this content today!
Register Now Already registered? Click here to Log In
Tags: Firm Management, staff
