Start here
How to recognise where to begin
Three short moves to narrow where automation or AI could start in your firm.
01
Spot the small work moments your team keeps repeating.
02
Look closely at one recent job instead of every workflow.
03
Decide where a deeper automation review should start.
01
Everyday Accounting Work | Four recurring moments
Four moments your team may be revisiting more often than it should
Some pressure inside an accounting firm shows up through small situations that keep returning. One of these may sound much closer to your team’s day-to-day work than the others.
Client information
Client Replies That Do Not Clear the Request
A client uploads documents or answers part of an email. The job remains open because someone still has to compare the response with what was originally requested and identify what has not arrived.
Job status
A Status Update That Still Needs an Explanation
The practice system shows the job as “waiting”, “in progress” or “complete”. Before taking the next step, someone checks the email thread, file note or document folder to understand what the status actually means.
Explore why accounting job status may not show the blocker →
Review
Files Arriving at Review With Work Still Open
A manager or partner opens a file and finds a missing document, an unanswered query or preparation that still needs attention. The file goes back before the review can continue.
Repeated checking
Updates the Team Still Verifies Manually
A client reply, uploaded document or completed task is visible in the system. Someone checks it again before relying on the update and allowing the job to continue.
Explore accounting tasks that may be suitable for automation →
What to Notice Across These Moments
A reply, status change or completed task has been recorded, but the next person still has a check to make.
They may need to confirm what is missing, whether the file is ready or who should act next. When that same pause keeps returning across jobs, it adds work that is easy to overlook because it happens inside ordinary follow-ups, file checks and quick conversations.
The better question is not “which tool should we buy”, but “which repeated moment inside our firm is the one worth fixing first”.
02
Existing Software | Illustrative example
Why an updated job can still send the team back to emails and files
Try and recall
ONE RECENT JOB
A client uploads three documents, and the job moves from Waiting to In Progress. The status is accurate: new information has arrived. It does not show whether the client has supplied everything that was requested.
| WHERE THE TEAM LOOKS | WHAT THEY FIND THERE |
|---|---|
| Client portal | The three files that were uploaded |
| Original request | The four items the firm asked the client to provide |
| Email reply | A note saying the remaining statement will be sent later |
| Job record | The updated status, but not necessarily the outstanding statement or next follow-up |
Takeaway. None of the tools has necessarily recorded incorrect information. Each one holds a different part of what has happened. The preparer compares these places before deciding whether work can begin — they may then add a note about the missing statement, leave the job waiting, or assign another follow-up.
The repeated work comes from bringing those parts together whenever the team needs to decide what to do with the job.
Read why practice software can show the job status without showing what is blocking the work
03
Before you choose a tool | Make sure the team knows what to do when something is missing
When something is missing, the team needs to know whether the job waits or continues
Finding the missing statement is only part of the work. The team still needs a consistent way to handle the job while that item remains outstanding.
One ordinary situation. A client uploads three of the four requested documents. One statement is still missing. The preparer can see what arrived. The remaining decision is whether preparation can begin, whether the job should stay waiting, and what should happen next.
01
What counts as complete?
The team should know whether all requested items must arrive before preparation begins, or whether part of the work may continue while one item remains outstanding.
02
What keeps the job waiting?
The missing item should be clear enough that different team members would reach the same conclusion about whether the job can move.
03
Who takes the next action?
The follow-up should remain with a defined person or role. The preparer should not need to reopen emails or ask around to discover who is responsible. The outstanding statement and the next follow-up should be recorded against the job rather than remaining only in the original request or email thread.
04
When does a person need to decide?
An ordinary missing document may follow the firm’s usual process. A client who cannot provide the item, sends an alternative document or raises an unusual issue may require a manager or accountant to decide what happens next. A familiar partial response may follow the firm’s usual approach. Conflicting information, an unusual client explanation or a decision requiring professional judgement should be passed to the appropriate reviewer.
Different responses from different people make this moment difficult to automate reliably. Until these points are clear, technology would be acting on rules that the team itself may not apply consistently.
Once the ordinary response and the situations requiring a person are understood, the firm has one specific moment it can examine before making a wider automation or AI decision.
04
Start small | Pick one recent job and study just that one
You do not need to define every workflow before you begin
Clarifying when a job should wait, who should act next and when a person must decide may sound like a firm-wide process exercise. It does not need to begin that way.
One recurring job
Stay with one part of the job
Do not map the job from beginning to end. Look only at the moment where the team had to stop and check something before continuing.
That might be when:
- a client uploaded only part of what was requested;
- a file reached review with something still open;
- a status changed but the next action remained unclear;
- or an update was checked again before anyone relied on it.
Use what actually happened
Open the job record, the original request, the client response and any note left by the team. These show how that particular situation was handled more clearly than a general discussion about how the process usually works.
One recent example is enough to begin examining whether the expected response is clear and repeated consistently.
05
Explore the Situation Closest to Your Firm | Deep-dive guides
Go deeper into one recurring work moment
The four situations introduced earlier can each lead to a different investigation. Choose the guide that most closely resembles what your team keeps encountering.
Client information
The Client Replied, but the Request Is Still Open
Explore whether repeated client chasing begins with the request, an incomplete reply, the way missing items are recorded or ownership of the next follow-up.
Job visibility
The Status Is Visible, but the Blocker Is Not
Explore why a job can show activity in practice software while the team still checks emails, notes and folders to understand whether it can continue.
Review pressure
Work Reaches Review Before It Is Genuinely Ready
Explore why BAS and tax jobs can reach a manager or partner while information, preparation or an earlier decision is still unresolved.
Why BAS and Tax Jobs Reach Manager or Partner Review Too Early and Where Automation Should Start
Repeated checking
Software Recorded the Update, but the Team Checked It Again
Explore which accounting tasks may be suitable for automation when the firm already has software but still relies on repeated manual checks.
What Accounting Tasks Can Be Automated When Your Firm Already Has Software?
06
FAQ | Questions accounting firm owners ask before starting automation
Practical questions before you begin
Automation and AI can support accounting work, but deciding where and how to use them raises practical questions. These answers clarify what firms should examine before selecting a tool or attempting to automate a wider process.
What is accounting workflow automation?
Accounting workflow automation is the use of technology to carry out defined, repeatable actions as work moves through an accounting process.
Depending on the workflow, this may include recording an update, checking whether required information is present, assigning the next action, sending a reminder, moving a job to another stage or notifying a person when a decision is required.
It works best when the firm has already defined what should happen in the ordinary situation, what prevents the job from continuing and which cases still require professional judgement.
What is the difference between accounting workflow automation and AI?
Workflow automation generally follows defined instructions. For example, it may send a reminder after a due date, assign a task when a document arrives or prevent a job from moving until a required field is complete.
AI can interpret less structured information, such as the content of an email, an uploaded document or a written client explanation. It may classify information, identify possible missing items, summarise content or suggest a next action.
The two can work together, but they are not interchangeable. AI may help interpret what has happened; the workflow still needs rules governing what the firm should do with that interpretation.
Why should an accounting firm not automate an unclear process?
Automation repeats the instruction it has been given. It does not resolve disagreement inside the firm about what the instruction should be.
Where different team members treat the same situation differently, automation may move a job too early, send an unnecessary request, assign the wrong person or hide an exception that should have been reviewed.
Planning does not require documenting the entire firm before beginning. It means making the expected response clear for the particular recurring moment being considered.
How should an accounting firm decide which workflow to automate first?
Begin with a recurring moment rather than a broad department or an entire service line.
Look for a situation that:
• occurs regularly;
• requires a similar check each time;
• causes work to pause or return;
• is handled consistently in ordinary cases;
• and has clear exceptions that can be passed to a person.
Use one recent job to see what actually happened. Review the original request, client response, job record, uploaded files and team notes rather than relying only on how the process is believed to work.
Does every repetitive accounting task need to be automated?
No. Repetition alone does not make a task a suitable automation candidate.
Some repeated work may involve interpreting unusual information, applying professional judgement, discussing a client’s circumstances or deciding how accounting and regulatory requirements apply.
The stronger candidates are usually repeated operational actions where the expected input, decision rule, next step and exception path can be described clearly.
Which accounting tasks are commonly suitable for automation?
Tasks with stable inputs and a predictable next action are often easier to examine first. Examples may include:
• reminding clients about specific outstanding documents;
• checking whether required items have been received;
• assigning follow-up ownership;
• updating a job after a defined event;
• notifying a reviewer when preparation is complete;
• routing an unusual response to the appropriate person.
Suitability still depends on how the firm handles the underlying situation. The same task may be clear and repeatable in one practice but inconsistent in another.
Why does the team still check emails and files when practice-management software is already in place?
Practice-management software can record jobs, tasks, deadlines, ownership and status. However, the information needed for the next decision may still be spread across the client request, portal upload, email explanation, file note and job record.
For example, a status may correctly show that documents were received without confirming whether every requested document arrived.
The repeated check occurs when a person has to bring those separate pieces together before deciding whether the job can continue.
Practice-management platforms are designed to organise jobs and workflows, but the presence of software does not by itself define how every partial response or exception should be handled.
Can automation work with the accounting software the firm already uses?
Often, yes. Automation does not necessarily require replacing the firm’s accounting, document-management or practice-management platforms.
It may connect existing systems, respond to events already captured by them or carry information between tools. The practical question is whether the required data is available, reliable and accessible through an appropriate integration.
The firm should also examine security, permissions, audit history and what should happen when an integration fails or receives unexpected information.
AI is generally more useful as a complement to specialist accounting software than as an assumed replacement for it.
Can AI decide whether an accounting job is ready to continue?
AI may help identify documents, compare received information with a request or flag something that appears incomplete. Whether it should make the final decision depends on the nature and risk of that decision.
A low-risk, familiar case may proceed according to an approved rule. An alternative document, conflicting explanation, unusual transaction or matter requiring professional judgement should be passed to an appropriate person.
Human oversight remains important for quality assurance and accountability in accounting use cases involving AI.
Should an accounting firm map every workflow before starting automation?
No. A firm-wide process-mapping exercise is not required to begin examining automation
Choose one recurring type of job and one recent situation where the next step was unclear or required another check. Stay with that moment long enough to establish:
• what happened;
• what information was available;
• what prevented or allowed progress;
• who acted next;
• and whether another person would have handled it the same way.
This creates a manageable starting point without turning the first investigation into a whole-practice transformation project.
What should happen when a client sends an incomplete or unusual response?
The firm should distinguish between an ordinary partial response and an exception.
For an ordinary case, the workflow may record the missing item, keep the job in the appropriate stage, assign the follow-up and continue any work that the firm has already decided may proceed.
An unusual response—such as an unavailable document, conflicting information or an alternative that requires assessment—should go to the person authorised to decide what happens next.
The automation should not hide that distinction merely to keep the job moving.
How long does it take to identify the first workflow moment worth examining?
The first step does not need to be a long workshop or detailed systems audit.
A short initial check can help narrow several areas of pressure to one recurring moment. The firm can then inspect one recent job and determine whether the expected response is clear enough for a deeper automation assessment.
Start the 4–6 Minute Check
The Starting Point Check
Find one moment worth examining first.
Answer ten short questions about situations that keep returning in your firm’s day-to-day work. The check helps you narrow those answers to one recurring moment worth examining first. It does not recommend software.
A short report
You receive a written summary of the one recurring moment worth examining first, based on your answers — a starting point for automation, not a pitch.
Optional call to discuss
If useful, book a conversation with Memorres to talk through the report. Not a sales pitch — a working discussion about what to try first.
Research & Scope
Built from how Australian accounting firms actually run, not how software vendors describe them
This resource is built on research across job listings, firm and software reviews, practitioner forums, and guidance from bodies like AUSTRAC, layered with segmentation work on Australian accounting, bookkeeping and advisory firms and the language their owners and operators actually use.
Not every firm is treated the same in this research. The focus sits on owner-led firms where growing teams, multiple services, and role handovers create more coordination pressure than a smaller or more standardised practice would face. Using software is treated as a sign of operational maturity here, not proof the work is already clear or consistently managed.
Research areas considered
• Australian accounting-firm segmentation
• practice-management and accounting software use
• language used by accounting-firm buyers and operators
• common firm roles and review structures
• repeated checking and work visibility
• client document collection and follow-up
• automation-readiness conditions
Written by
Ranjana Thanvi
Founder & CEO, Memorres
Scope
This page covers workflow, software, automation and AI design. It does not provide accounting, tax, BAS, GST, compliance, legal or professional-practice advice. Examples are illustrative and should be assessed against the firm’s own professional obligations, internal processes and technology environment.