FeQSoft
Growth is often slowed not by a lack of resources, but by time lost in day-to-day work, poor handovers, duplicated effort or unclear responsibilities.
We examine the whole process, then sequence the improvements so that operations become easier to use, clearer and more measurable.
Before
Waiting, rework and unclear responsibility
After
- Incoming request
- Owner assigned
- Work completed
- Review
- Completion and measurement
Fewer steps, clear handovers and a measurable outcome: the same work, with less waste.
The same effort, a different result
Often the difference lies not in how hard people work, but in whether their efforts point in the right direction. For most businesses, the first question is not whether they have enough resources, but whether they use the resources they already have effectively. That is why we begin process improvement by finding where effort is lost, not by asking people to work harder.
What do we examine?
- Where waiting, rework or lost information arise.
- Whether responsibilities and handover points are clear.
- Whether each task reaches the colleague with the right expertise.
- Which data is entered more than once, or not recorded at all.
- Whether the system helps users or adds unnecessary work.
- Which tasks can be automated safely.
- How to measure the effect of a change.
Outsource, redesign in-house or retain the current model?
A typical assignment is to determine whether a process should be outsourced, redesigned within the company or retained in its current form. We do not begin by arguing for either outsourcing or an in-house solution; we compare the realistic options using the same business and operational criteria.
The analysis goes beyond comparing hourly rates. We consider total cost — including management time, recruitment and onboarding, systems, handovers and transition — as well as quality, available capacity, flexibility, service levels, knowledge retention, data and operational risks, the control that remains with the company and the process’s strategic importance.
The decision paper sets out the advantages, disadvantages, conditions and transition risks of each option. The recommendation may be outsourcing, internal improvement, a hybrid solution or confirmation that the current operating model is appropriate. The goal is not change for its own sake, but a demonstrably better business decision.
In-house or outsourced accounting?
An illustrative decision analysis based on a five-person in-house team
In-house accounting team
Chief accountant → Senior → 2 accountants → Assistant
- Fast informal coordination
- Company knowledge retained in-house
- Repeated data entry
- Cover risk
Approximately 792 internal hours per year, equal to about 0.45 productive FTE when 1,760 hours per year is used as the assumption.
External accounting provider
Internal process owner → Service manager → Specialist pool
- Capacity and cover
- SLA and specialist expertise
- Dependency on data handovers
- Less direct control
Approximately 384 internal hours per year — fewer participants, but formal handovers and ticket-related lead times.
Illustrative total annual cost
The HUF 1.8m first-year difference is not, by itself, a reason to decide either way. With parallel operation, the first year of outsourcing may be more expensive.
- In-house pay and payroll tax: HUF 63.1m. Five people, illustrative gross pay plus 13% social contribution tax; no allowances and not a KIVA example.
- Other in-house TCO: HUF 23.9m. Benefits treated as total employer cost, licences, IT, training, management time, cover and contingency.
- Potential payback period: approximately 2.7–3.2 years from the start, using only the assumed transition and recurring costs.
Operating-model comparison
We compare both models across security, lead time, deadlines, accountability, cost, control, knowledge retention and scalability. The illustrative example gives the in-house team stronger control and knowledge retention, while the external provider scores higher on deadline reliability and scalability. During an audit, the actual values and their weighting are determined from the company’s own data.
The review does not automatically recommend outsourcing
This is an illustrative example, not a market quotation or a tax calculation. Pay, internal hours, provider fees and scores are adjustable assumptions. The external provider fee is an example net cost excluding deductible VAT; the in-house controller item is treated as a total employer cost. A real decision requires company process data, volumes, service levels, and contractual, legal and tax review.
Small improvements add up
A one-per-cent improvement at a single point may seem modest. But when losses fall, waiting times shorten or information improves at several connected points, the combined effect can be felt in capacity, customer experience and business results.
References in this area
Long-running collaborations and completed assignments from process improvement and audit work.
We are a small business. Is process improvement worthwhile for us?
Often especially so: with a small team, every lost hour costs more. We start with small changes that can pay off quickly, not with a major reorganisation.
We want to automate. Where should we begin?
By putting the process in order. Automating a disorganised process merely speeds up its mistakes. We measure and organise first, then automate.