The onboarding audit that is still open two months later
A new client signs up and the first job is an HR audit: what contracts are people on, which policies exist, whether right to work records are kept, how absence is recorded, what the headcount really is. Your consultant sends the standard request list. It has thirty items.
The client's office manager sends some contracts. Then a zip file of 'everything we have'. Then a staff list in a spreadsheet with a different number of people from the contracts folder. Two policies turn out to be from a previous business. Weeks later the consultant is still not sure what is missing, and the client has started asking when they will see the report.
Why audits stall
A thirty-item list in one email asks the client to do a project they do not understand. They send what is easy and stop. When documents come back, they arrive as a heap, and a consultant has to open each file to find out what it is. Nobody tracks item by item what is still outstanding, so chasing is vague ('can you send the rest?') and gets vague replies.
Then there is the cross-checking. Matching the staff list to the contracts, spotting who has no contract on file or who is on an old template, is exactly the kind of tedious comparison that eats a consultant's afternoon.
What the delay costs
- A slow first impression for a client who has just started paying.
- Consultant time spent sorting files rather than reviewing them.
- Risk issues sitting unaddressed while the audit waits for documents.
- Audit reports that vary in depth depending on who wrote them.
- Fixed-fee audits that run well over the time they were priced on.
How we build the audit workflow
- The client receives one link to a guided request, broken into short sections: people, contracts, policies, records, pay and benefits. Each item has a plain explanation of what it is and an upload slot.
- Items can be marked 'we do not have this', which is itself a finding, rather than being left blank.
- Uploads are labelled by the slot they went into, and a tracker shows your consultant and the client what is complete and what is outstanding.
- Reminders go to the client for outstanding items only, and the consultant is alerted when progress stops.
- The staff list is read and compared with the contracts received, so people with no contract on file, or contracts for people not on the list, are listed for the consultant to check.
- Contracts and policies are compared with your current templates to show where they differ, as a starting point for the consultant's review.
- Findings are recorded against a structured template as the consultant works, with ratings and recommendations in your house style, and the report is generated from them.
| Audit area | What the tool does | What the consultant does |
|---|---|---|
| Staff list v contracts | Matches names and lists gaps | Decides what the gaps mean |
| Policies | Compares with your templates | Judges whether differences matter |
| Records | Tracks which records were provided | Assesses what should be in place |
| Report | Assembles findings into your format | Writes the findings and priorities |
What audits look like after
The client sees a clear list and can finish it in sittings. Consultants start reviewing sooner because files arrive organised and the tedious matching is done. Reports are consistent across consultants because they are built from the same findings structure. And the audit becomes the natural starting point for the client's record in your consultancy: the facts gathered feed straight into their profile.
Could this be your onboarding?
- New client audits wait weeks for documents.
- Documents arrive in one unlabelled heap.
- You chase with 'please send the rest' because nobody knows exactly what is missing.
- Matching staff lists to contracts is done by hand.
- Audit reports vary a lot between consultants.