Fast Close: Do You Really Have to Wait Until Closing to Verify?

The financial close is often experienced as a sprint: just a few days to review, approve, and produce all the deliverables. This fast-paced schedule sometimes leaves little time to address issues with a clear head and truly analyze the results.

The Fast Close offers a different perspective: what if the problem isn’t the closing process itself, but rather the way controls are concentrated there?

Rethinking the Role of Controls in the Financial Closing Process

Test sooner or test faster?

Reconciliations, consistency checks, account verification, validation of journal entries, variance analysis… Controls play a vital role in any financial closing process.

They help ensure the quality of the data produced and secure the accounts before they are validated.

But their placement in the closing schedule raises an important question.

When numerous audits are conducted within a short time frame, they add to the other tasks that must be completed at the end of the period: closing entries, adjustments, consolidation, validation, and the preparation of reports.

So the problem isn’t the existence of these checks. They are necessary.

The question is rather: Do they all have to wait until closing?

In a Fast Close approach, seeking to answer this question helps shift the focus of the discussion. The goal is no longer simply to complete the same work more quickly, but to identify what actually needs to be done by the end of the period and what can be reviewed, prepared, or finalized earlier.

Not all controls are subject to the same constraints

Talking about “ year-end closing procedures ” as if they were a homogeneous group can be misleading.

Some checks necessarily depend on information that is only available at the end of the period. Others, on the other hand, are based on data that is already available during the month and can be performed more regularly.

Consequently, the constraints vary depending on the nature of the audit, the availability of data, the level of risk, and the processes involved.

A bank reconciliation, an interface consistency check, an account reconciliation, or the approval of a one-time journal entry do not necessarily follow the same timeline.

That is why a Fast Close approach should not seek to systematically move all controls to an earlier stage in the process.

First, it must allow for their segmentation.

Which controls must remain in place at year-end?
What inspections can be conducted while the vessel is underway?
Which ones can be automated?
Which ones should continue to be analyzed by humans?

This analysis makes it possible to focus end-of-period efforts on the operations for which this timing is truly necessary.

When the inspection schedule adds to the rush

The project timeline is often structured around a sequence of interdependent tasks.

Data must be available before it can be verified. A verification must be completed before an adjustment can be made. That adjustment may, in turn, determine whether validation or consolidation can take place.

In this context, a delay early in the process can have a ripple effect on subsequent steps.

When multiple checks are scheduled late, teams also have less time to analyze and correct the detected anomalies.

The challenge, therefore, does not stem solely from the volume of inspections that need to be conducted.

It also stems from their role in the process, their dependencies, and the time allotted to the teams to handle exceptions.

Reduce the closing deadlines therefore requires looking not only at the duration of each task, but also at its place in the schedule and the activities it depends on.

Anticipating does not mean shifting the burden

One possible solution would be to move as many inspections as possible to before closing time.

But this approach, too, has its limitations.

Moving a task from Day 1 to Day -2 is not necessarily an optimization if the data available on Day -2 is not sufficiently reliable or if the check must then be repeated.

Anticipation is valuable only when the conditions necessary to carry out the inspection are met.

In particular, it involves asking ourselves the following questions:

• data availability
• its level of reliability at the time of the inspection
• the appropriate frequency of inspection
• any changes that may occur subsequently
• the level of risk associated with the process

Fast Close, therefore, does not involve artificially expediting all tasks.

It involves rethinking their placement within the accounting cycle.

Ways to Better Position Controls

From end-of-period checks to process-integrated checks

For certain activities, monitoring can be gradually integrated into day-to-day operations.

Rather than waiting until the close to identify an anomaly, the goal is to detect it as soon as it occurs—or early enough to prevent it from becoming a closing issue.

This approach may apply, in particular, to certain reconciliations, consistency checks, recurring transactions, or variance analyses. It helps gradually reduce the number of anomalies detected in recent days.

Of course, the closing process retains its own checks and validations. The goal is not to eliminate them.

Rather, the goal is to ensure that the financial statement closing is no longer the first point at which the quality of financial information is actually verified.

The Role of Continuous Accounting: A Tool, Not an End in Itself

This approach is partly consistent with the principles of continuous accounting.

The approach involves incorporating more accounting activities and controls into the day-to-day cycle rather than systematically concentrating them at the end of the month.

For certain accounts or processes, reconciliations may, for example, be performed more frequently. This allows discrepancies to be identified and analyzed before the close of the period.

However, continuous accounting alone does not provide a solution to all the challenges of Fast Close.

The ability to perform continuous monitoring depends, in particular, on the nature of the data, the organization, the processes, the level of automation, and the specific constraints of each company.

It is therefore a tool to be integrated into a broader approach, rather than a model to be applied uniformly to all processes.

Automating checks: yes, but which ones?

Automationautomation is another important driver.

Some controls are based on clearly defined and repetitive rules: data matching, deviation detection, threshold checks, transaction reconciliations, or consistency checks.

When these rules are sufficiently stable, automating them can allow teams to spend less time performing the check and more time analyzing exceptions.

However, automation does not mean the end of human oversight.

The more a check requires judgment, an understanding of the context, or the interpretation of an unusual situation, the more important the teams’ involvement remains.

So the question we should ask is not just:

“Can this check be automated?”

But rather:

“Which part of the audit can be automated, and which part still requires analysis?”

This distinction helps avoid systematic automation that would simply shift the problems rather than solve them.

Handle exceptions rather than adding more checks

Another approach is to change the very logic behind certain controls.

When standard operations can be safeguarded by reliable rules, teams can focus more of their attention on exceptions: significant discrepancies, unusual transactions, inconsistencies, or items requiring special analysis.

This approach makes it possible to tailor treatments based on their level of risk and complexity.

It also avoids applying the same level of effort to all operations, regardless of their nature.

In a Fast Close process, this ability to quickly identify exceptions can help reduce manual work without compromising the quality of the financial statements.

The Conditions for an Effective Approach

Data quality remains an essential requirement

No reorganization of controls can be fully effective if the data used is unreliable, incomplete, or difficult to analyze.

On the contrary, performing a check early on data that will need to be modified multiple times can actually create additional work.

The reliability of the data must therefore be taken into account throughout the process.

In particular, this involves understanding the causes of recurring anomalies.

If the same error is identified at every closing, the solution should not necessarily be to add an additional control.

It may be more effective to try to correct the cause of this error.

Fast Close thus leads to a gradual shift in focus: from corrective oversight to a more preventive approach whenever possible.

Team organization is just as important as the monitoring itself

The placement of controls is not solely a matter for the accounting process.

It also depends on the organization.

• Who conducts the inspection?
• Who treats the condition?
• Who approves the correction?
• What is the expected turnaround time?
• What happens when an issue remains open?

When these responsibilities are not clearly defined, the audit may be completed on time without the identified problem being resolved quickly enough.

Clarifying roles and responsibilities therefore becomes a key factor in the success of the year-end closing process.

The goal is not just to detect it earlier.

We also need to be able to take action sooner.

Measuring Control Performance in a Different Way

The total closing time naturally remains an important indicator.

But on its own, it does not allow us to understand where the difficulties lie.

Other indicators can provide additional insight:

• number of anomalies detected at the end of the period
• percentage of inspections completed before year-end, where applicable
• average time to resolve an issue
• number of checks or reconciliations requiring a correction
• volume of late or corrective entries
• level of automation for repetitive checks

These indicators help distinguish between a closing process that is simply fast and one that is truly better managed.

Where should I start?

Before adding new tools or attempting to automate all controls, the first step is to map out the current system.

For each check, a few simple questions can be asked:

• Why does this check exist?
• When is it done, and why?
• What data does it depend on?
• Can it be predicted?
• Can it be fully or partially automated?
• How often is it really necessary?
• What happens when an anomaly is detected?

This analysis helps identify which controls create genuine dependencies in the closing process, which ones could be repositioned, and which ones could be simplified.

The goal is not to relocate all inspections or to systematically reduce their number.

The goal is to implement the right control measure, at the right time, with the appropriate level of intervention.

Fast Close: Better Control Rather Than Less Control

Speeding up the closing process should never mean reducing the level of control necessary to ensure the reliability of the financial statements. Rather, the Fast Close approach encourages us to examine how these controls are organized.

Some must remain at the end of the process. Others can be anticipated. Some can be automated. Others still require the expertise and judgment of the teams. Performance, therefore, stems less from a uniform reduction in controls than from their better integration into the process.

The challenge isn’t choosing between speed and control. It’s making sure that quality isn’t checked only when time is running out.

FAQ