To enable law firms to tackle future-proof areas of business, they must first of all make their repetitive tasks more efficient. One major area that should be optimised through automation is bookkeeping. Our guest today, Andreas Hausmann, specialises in precisely this area. As a former DATEV consultant and expert in DATEV accounting, he knows exactly where to start. What are the challenges? What needs to be taken into account? What implications does automation in bookkeeping have in the context of process documentation or the internal control system (ICS)?

Andreas Hausmann is a DATEV consultant and worked for DATEV himself until 2018. Whilst there, he provided training on digital accounting. After leaving his salaried position, he set up his own business. He offers sustainable, practical DATEV consultancy and training. Law firms tend to make use of the training services so that the whole team is at a comparable level of knowledge. Companies, on the other hand, approach Andreas for project-based work. For example, when they need a DATEV interface. Or he supports the accounts department for a few weeks or months until working with DATEV is running smoothly.

How does Andreas approach it when a law firm wants to automate its bookkeeping? The DATEV Toolbox is designed for this specific application. Andreas trains law firms on how to use it properly. When it comes to businesses, each case must be considered individually. For Andreas, the issue of automation is largely a question of interfaces. When it comes to designing processes, Andreas says law firms are largely left out of the picture. This is because the nature of the processes depends heavily on the client.

Automate bookkeeping

If a company wishes to automate its accounting, Andreas first asks a few questions. What does the accounting process currently look like? What is the aim of automating the accounting? Is it about saving money, or is the aim to free up resources? Which systems are in use? He identifies where the various data come from and then assesses: What can be automated?

Paul points out that, in his experience, many law firm staff stop using the tools in the DATEV Toolbox after a certain point. This happens for a wide variety of reasons. Has Andreas had similar experiences in this regard? Andreas replies that many firms approach him with a desire to optimise costs and processes. He counters that the firm must be on board with the project. This is because such measures involve training that requires the commitment of everyone involved. If the team isn’t on board, the firm might as well save its money.

Service or invoice

The question is, what are a law firm’s objectives when it recommends tools such as those from the DATEV Toolbox to its clients? On the one hand, there are tools that save time; however, a law firm can earn money through bookkeeping. This would therefore free up capacity for services that can be billed at a higher rate. However, it is only worthwhile if a law firm offers – or is able to offer – such services and a client is interested in them. Furthermore, there are tools that make the client’s work easier, but from which the firm derives no direct benefit. Here, I must ask the firm whether it looks purely at costs and benefits, or whether it also sees itself as a service provider and partner that has a general interest in the client’s success.

Andreas has even come across a law firm that has created a role dedicated solely to client onboarding. This has led to a significant increase in client satisfaction, as it ensures that all questions and issues are resolved before the work even really gets underway. This raises the question of whether these upfront efforts are billed. A law firm should weigh up how much it is willing to invest upfront and which measures will ultimately benefit the firm itself. The latter definitely includes more efficient collaboration with the client. According to Andreas, open and timely communication is key here. As a law firm, stating how much you are prepared to invest – provided the client is willing to go along with it and play their part – pays off in the long run in most cases.

Automation requires documentation

One thing that is absolutely essential to bear in mind when implementing automation is the issue of documentation. This is because it is usually the case that, at the outset, one person devises and sets up new processes. However, it is rarely the same person who subsequently carries out those processes. Andreas has only just experienced a situation where, in a law firm, the people responsible for certain processes were unavailable – and nobody could step in to cover for them because nothing had been documented. There were no standardised processes in place. This problem arises time and again, particularly where interfaces are concerned.

Andreas then asks Paul whether such issues relating to the documentation of complex processes are taken into account when it comes to procedural documentation. Paul confirms this, as hsp has been using the term „Process documentation“ rather than „process documentation“. By using this alternative term, hsp aims to make it clear that the focus is not on simply getting through a tax audit unscathed. That will happen anyway, provided the documentation is kept properly. The question is what benefits companies can derive from such documentation. Hence ‘process documentation’: the term makes it clear that the aim is to record the processes. A company can then use this to, for example, identify weaknesses and realise potential.