Financial reporting & analysis
The Challenge
The accounting records had accumulated a backlog of transactions that could not simply be corrected at the accounting level.
The first step was to go back to the original booking sources and verify that the information reaching the PMS was complete and accurate.
Even when a PMS indicates that it is successfully pulling data from an OTA, individual transactions can still fail to transfer correctly.
The key questions were:
-
Are all OTA reservations reaching the PMS?
-
Are cancellations and refunds being transferred correctly?
-
Are payouts matching the underlying reservations?
-
Are booking changes reflected correctly?
-
Are fees, commissions and taxes being captured correctly?
-
Are there transactions missing between the OTA and the PMS?
-
Which differences are caused by the OTA, PMS integration or accounting process?
Before
-
Accounting backlog with unresolved transactions
-
PMS data assumed to be complete because integrations were active
-
OTA information not consistently reconciled to PMS records
-
Refunds and adjustments creating unexplained differences
-
Difficult to determine where an error originated
After Numveri
-
Original booking sources reconciled directly to the PMS
-
Missing and incorrect transactions identified
-
Refunds, cancellations and adjustments investigated
-
PMS data cleaned before continuing with accounting reconciliation
-
Clear audit trail from the original booking through to accounting
OTA → PMS Reconciliation
We started with the source of the transaction, rather than assuming the PMS was correct.
Each OTA was reviewed against the corresponding PMS records to identify transactions that were missing, duplicated or incorrectly transferred.
Refund & Cancellation Review
Refunds and cancellations were specifically reviewed because these transactions can create differences between the original booking, PMS records, payouts and accounting.
Accounting Cleanup
Once the source data was validated, the accounting records could be cleaned with greater confidence.
This prevented the team from simply “fixing the accounting” while leaving the underlying PMS or source-data problem unresolved.
That last point, in my opinion, is the core message of Case 4 and makes it substantially different from Case 1. Case 1 is about building the connection/system; Case 4 is about finding and cleaning what has already gone wrong inside an existing system.