Manual data entry and inconsistent procedures are two common reasons accounting firms start looking for new workpaper technology. Preparers spend time copying information between documents and systems, while reviewers receive files that do not always present the same information in the same way.
A figure copied from a statement or ledger has to be checked against its original source. If different teams also use different templates, completion checks or places to record their notes, the reviewer must first work out how the file has been prepared. Time that should be spent reviewing the accounting work is instead used to trace information and fill gaps in the file.
MYOB’s 2026 Accounting Industry Monitor found similar problems across the Australian profession. Among the practices surveyed, 53 per cent had problems integrating their systems, with disconnected software leading to duplicated data and extra work. A further 54 per cent said document retrieval was a shortcoming in their existing technology.
Simply moving jobs through the queue faster will not solve these problems. Firms need to reduce repeated handling before review and give preparers a clear standard to follow. Any workpaper software for accountants should be judged on how well it supports those two changes.
Manual entry creates two lots of work. The preparer enters the information, then the reviewer checks both the figure and where it came from. If the original data changes, the same information may need to be entered and checked again.
A bank reconciliation is a simple example. When the ledger balance and closing statement balance are typed into a spreadsheet, both values must be checked manually. If a late journal changes the ledger, the spreadsheet must also be updated before the review can continue.
The same problem happens when information moves between the ATO, client documents, the accounting ledger and a workpaper. CA ANZ’s workflow guidance recommends automating repetitive procedures and gives the example of bringing financial data into tax workpapers without entering it again. The accountant remains responsible for checking the result, but no longer needs to copy every figure by hand.
Before changing the system, take a recently completed job and follow several figures from their original source to the final workpaper. Note every point where somebody downloads, copies, types, renames or updates information. This separates the steps that need an accountant’s input from those that only exist because the firm’s systems are disconnected.
Workpapers Sorted can bring financial and client data into the workpaper process through integrations with accounting platforms, Xero Practice Manager and the ATO. Supporting documents can also be brought in from FYI. Placeholders populate defined fields, while Cloudoffis AI extracts information from supported documents. Preparers still check the information, but they have fewer figures to enter and reviewers have a clearer record of the source.
Automation is best used for the repetitive parts of preparation. It can move a figure into the right field or flag a balance that has changed, but the professional eye of the accountant still decides whether the information is correct and what action is needed.
When source data is refreshed in Workpapers Sorted, the accountant can see which values have changed before they accept them. The current value, new value and source are shown together. A reviewer can then focus on the affected workpapers instead of checking the whole file again after an adjustment.
MYOB reported that Australian practices using AI saw faster turnaround in 55 per cent of cases, fewer errors in 53 per cent and increased capacity in 48 per cent. The figures cover AI use across the practice rather than workpapers alone, so they should not be treated as a promised result from one product. They do show why repetitive work is a sensible place for firms to start using automation, and the accountants retain responsibility for exceptions, explanations and final approval.
Most accounting practices have procedures, but they may not be consistent across the whole organisation, particularly in larger teams. Different teams often develop their own templates, naming rules and completion checks over time. Review questions may be kept in the job by one team, sent by email by another and recorded in a separate spreadsheet elsewhere.
The reviewer then has to learn how each preparer or team has organised the work before reviewing it. Similar jobs can take very different amounts of time because the supporting evidence, explanations and outstanding items have not been recorded consistently.
Standardising workpapers does not mean using an identical file for every client. The firm needs agreement on the parts that should remain consistent, including which template applies, what evidence is retained, where outstanding matters are recorded and how the preparer confirms that the work has been checked.
Workpapers Sorted includes over 70 customisable templates, and firms can also import and automate the Excel templates they already use. Checklists can be assigned to particular jobs, workpapers or account types. The team has a shared starting point, while the firm keeps control over the procedures and templates it wants to use.
A ready for review status will only be helpful if everybody understands what it confirms. Before a job enters the review queue, the required workpapers and checklists should be complete, figures should be traceable to their sources, unusual movements should be explained and outstanding matters should be clearly recorded. The preparer by this point should also have reached and documented a conclusion.
These requirements will vary between practices and job types, but they should be written down and used during preparation.A new team member should be able to understand the standard before submitting their first file, rather than learning it through a series of review notes.
Once you have defined what “ready for review” means, Workpapers Sorted allows you to build those stages into your workflow. This gives your team a shared process to follow instead of leaving each person to decide when a job is ready. Responsibility remains clear because every job identifies the preparer and reviewer. Due dates and review notes also remain visible as the work progresses. You still decide what must be completed before it moves forward.
Review notes can provide a useful record of where preparation is breaking down. Take five or ten recently reviewed jobs and group the notes by cause. Look for figures entered twice, old templates, missing explanations, inconsistent completion checks and jobs that were submitted before the preparation was finished.
Once the same comments start appearing across several files, you have identified a specific process to fix. The team can then remove unnecessary entry, agree on a shared preparation standard and decide how technology should support the process. When comparing workpaper management software, ask the provider to demonstrate those problem areas using one of the firm’s own jobs rather than relying on a general feature list.
Start with the free Cloudoffis Certification Program. It covers the move from spreadsheets to digital workpapers, integrations and opportunities for automation.
If you’d rather talk through the delays or inconsistencies in your current preparation and review process, speak with our team.
