Moving family office reporting from parallel systems to one accepted record

Built on Chapter 3 of How to Start a Family Office by Richard C. Wilson.

Running old and new reporting systems together can help a family office identify migration errors. It also needs an end condition. If staff keep reconciling both indefinitely, the family pays for duplicate work while nobody knows which record supports a decision.

Chapter 3 describes the systems required for accounting and reporting. I would apply that guidance to the point where a new system becomes the accepted working record. The handoff should depend on demonstrated readiness for the office's actual responsibilities.

Define what the comparison must establish

Identify the reports and workflows that the new system must support. Include the ownership distinctions and private investments material to the family's reporting. A successful import of liquid account balances may leave important work untested.

Specify what the old system contributes to the comparison. It may contain accepted historical records, but that does not make every old entry correct. Differences need investigation against supporting evidence.

Choose the people responsible for accepting the result. The software provider can explain how its system works. The family office must decide whether the output supports its own assignment.

Compare meaning as well as totals

A total portfolio value can agree while investments sit under the wrong owners. Test the details that affect the family's use of the report. Check whether shared holdings and commitments appear in the right places.

Examine the treatment of information arriving on different schedules. The new system may display an old private valuation beside a current account balance. The report should communicate that difference accurately.

Have the relevant accounting professionals assess treatment questions. The migration team should not settle an accounting disagreement by choosing whichever method makes the two totals match.

Work through a complete reporting cycle

Test how information enters the system and who checks it before circulation. Include the work performed manually outside the software. An automated feed can function correctly while a supporting ownership schedule remains out of date.

Ask another qualified employee to follow the ordinary process. If only the implementation specialist can produce the report, the office has not demonstrated that it can operate the system routinely.

Confirm that corrections can be made and explained. A useful system should preserve enough evidence for staff to understand an approved change after the migration team leaves.

Resolve the differences that affect acceptance

Group differences by cause. Some may be mapping errors, while others concern timing or prior records. Give each material item an owner and a resolution route.

Avoid extending the parallel run without explaining what the extra period will establish. Repeating the same comparison while waiting on an unrelated document does not necessarily improve the migration decision.

If an unresolved item can be managed outside the system temporarily, document that arrangement and obtain the appropriate acceptance. Keep the limitation visible to the people relying on the output.

When acceptance is authorized, tell the team which system supports current reporting from that point. Explain how users obtain historical information and where corrections should be requested.

Update the office's working instructions and report distribution process. An employee should not keep issuing an old report because it remains easier to find in a familiar folder.

Inform outside advisors affected by the change. They need to know whether the new output replaces the prior report and whom to contact about a difference. Sending both without explanation can create competing records.

Retain history without continuing duplicate operations

Preserve the records the office must keep and confirm how they can be accessed. The decision to stop ordinary use of a system is separate from the decision about historical retention.

Have the responsible people assess provider access and contract obligations. Keep the information needed for ongoing work available through approved methods before changing the old service arrangement.

After the first accepted cycle, examine any migration-related errors that remain. Correct the specific cause and update the operating instructions. A new system is ready when the office can run and explain its reporting without depending on the abandoned process.

Questions and answers

Is matching the grand total enough to end a parallel run? No. Test ownership and other material reporting requirements as well as the total.

Should historical records disappear when the new system starts? Retention and access should follow the office's obligations and records policy. Ending duplicate operations does not require losing history.

This page is general information, not legal advice. Family governance documents and dispute processes should be reviewed by a qualified attorney.