Hundreds of manual steps
The existing approach involved copying data between worksheets, reshaping exports and updating formulas. Around 90% of the effort went into preparing the data before detailed analysis could begin.
CASE STUDY · PAYROLL TRANSFORMATION
Payroll expertise.
Amplified by automation.
How KJM combined automation, payroll expertise and controlled reconciliation to help an international client prepare for payroll go-live.
- International client
- Pronto + iChris
- Automation + assurance
14
Parallel pay runs validated using the repeatable comparison process.
Over $7,000
Billable fees saved, after accounting for the time spent developing the solution.
Controlled assurance
Reconciliation checks, documented processing and retained evidence supported review and sign-off.
THE CHALLENGE
An established process, with too much manual preparation.
An international client was implementing payroll and time-and-attendance platforms across multiple payroll populations. KJM was engaged to provide testing and technical support, including comparing Pronto and iChris results to understand whether both systems were paying appropriately.
Differences needed an explanation
Different employee identifiers, pay codes and report structures made a direct comparison difficult. A discrepancy could reflect a payroll issue, an expected difference or an error introduced while preparing the data.
FOUNDER OVERSIGHT
Change the preparation. Protect the review.
Through active project oversight, a KJM founder identified the opportunity to automate repetitive work. The aim was to reduce handling risk and consulting effort while giving the senior consultant a stronger basis for investigating the payroll results.
From our work · Payroll transformation
We found a better use for our client’s consulting budget.
During a payroll system replacement, KJM helped a client build on their established comparison process. Automating repetitive preparation reduced manual effort and handling risk, creating more time to investigate and explain payroll differences.
- Over $7,000 saved
- Reduced handling risk
- More time for payroll analysis
Experience that changes the approach
1
Our senior consultant was assigned to compare parallel pay runs using the client’s established process. Preparing the data involved extensive copying, pasting and formula updates. Investigating differences also meant checking whether they came from payroll or from manual preparation.
2
Through active project oversight, a founder identified an opportunity to automate repetitive preparation and reduce handling risk. Using AI, they built a repeatable tool to prepare both datasets and flag exceptions for investigation and source-system fixes.
3
By reducing manual data handling, we reduced the risk of preparation errors and freed our senior consultant to investigate, resolve and explain discrepancies.
The project team gained repeatable checks and a clearer view of what needed attention. Documented, auditable comparisons gave sponsors a stronger basis for decisions about payroll readiness, with less consulting time spent preparing the data.
Real engagement. Illustrative pay codes, values and errors.
STAGE 3 OF 3
After automation: more time for analysis
Repeatable preparation. Quicker comparisons. Expert analysis.
More payroll insight
3.1 / PAYROLL INSIGHT
Over $7,000 in billable fees saved across 14 validated parallel pay runs. Savings are after accounting for the billable time spent developing the solution.
WHAT KJM BUILT
One repeatable process, from source files to exceptions.
The founder used AI to help develop parameterised Excel Power Queries for data preparation, comparison and import-file generation. The senior consultant then used the tool to deliver the testing, investigate exceptions and identify corrections needed in the source systems.
Import the Pronto files
Read the nominated Pronto exports using workbook setup parameters. Reshape the transactions into a consistent dataset, with employee, pay date, pay code, hours, rate and amount available for comparison.
Import the iChris files
Read the iChris payroll and employee details exports. Separate current pay information from year-to-date amounts and hours so the comparison uses the relevant pay run.
Align employees and pay codes
Use employee reference data to connect the identifiers in each system, then apply the pay-code mapping. Group the relevant transactions so equivalent earnings and deductions can be compared on a consistent basis.
Compare both sides
Bring the datasets together by employee and mapped pay code. The detailed comparison retains items found in only one system, helping prevent an unmatched record from disappearing from the review.
Report the exceptions
Calculate variances and flag differences for investigation. Show the relevant payroll components and known adjustment categories, giving the consultant the detail needed to distinguish expected differences from items requiring correction.
Reconcile and repeat
Compare the output totals back to the source reports, investigate exceptions, update mappings or source data as needed, then refresh and compare again. Reuse the process for subsequent parallel runs.
ASSURANCE BUILT INTO THE PROCESS
A matching total is only part of the answer.
The queries were designed to support investigation at both pay-code and employee-summary level. The review could examine where a difference originated and whether the comparison itself was complete.
Keep unmatched records visible
A full outer join in the detailed comparison preserves records present in only one system. Employee and pay-code mapping exceptions can then be investigated alongside value differences.
Explain the payroll components
Employee summaries bring together gross pay, taxable amounts, tax and net pay, with supporting views of deductions, superannuation or on-costs and overtime. This helps identify the component driving a variance.
Account for known differences
The query logic includes adjustment categories such as late attendance, absence, leave without pay and overtime. These give the reviewer context for interpreting differences between the two systems.
Reconcile all four views
Four-way reconciliation checked gross pay, taxable amounts, tax and net pay across the legacy data, new-system output and both comparison views. Separate source totals checks helped detect missing or duplicated values before relying on the detailed results.
Resolve issues before progressing
Employee and pay-code issues were resolved before imports. Processing followed defined dependencies, including timesheets before allowances and deductions, and clearing rounding differences before superannuation processing.
Retain evidence of the work
Process logs, versioned workbooks and structured SharePoint folders recorded the work performed. Final workbooks and source files were retained to support sign-off and subsequent audit review, even after test environments changed.
Automated preparation supported the review. The senior consultant remained responsible for investigating, resolving and explaining discrepancies.
EXPERTISE IN THE DETAIL
The payroll requirements changed. The method adapted.
Later in the engagement, the client introduced a more complex grade-based payroll structure. KJM extended the mapping model and import outputs to carry the required classifications, then refined the logic as duplication, reimbursement and rounding issues emerged.
Findings from one cycle informed the checks and query logic used in subsequent cycles. The method became more capable as the team worked through the payroll detail.
THE RESULT
Less manual handling. A stronger basis for payroll decisions.
Across 14 validated parallel pay runs, the approach saved over $7,000 in billable fees, including the billable time spent developing the solution.
More of the budget went into judgement
Repeated copying, reformatting and formula maintenance were replaced by refreshable queries. This freed the senior consultant to focus on analysing and explaining the results.
Lower preparation risk
Consistent transformation and comparison logic reduced reliance on manual spreadsheet handling. Exceptions highlighted discrepancies and helped direct source-system fixes.
Reconciled results across all four views
The first major test cycle reached complete four-way reconciliation after employee mapping and duplicate-record issues were corrected. Gross pay, taxable amounts, tax and net pay matched across the sources and comparison views.
Signed-off testing to support go-live
At close-off, the client confirmed that the submitted work had been signed off and the relevant payroll items were proceeding to go-live. Retained comparisons and source files preserved the evidence behind that work.
THE KJM DIFFERENCE
Use expertise where it changes the outcome.
The opportunity came from understanding both the payroll task and the work surrounding it. A founder identified where automation could reduce effort, and a senior consultant applied the payroll judgement needed to investigate and resolve exceptions.
Together, the automation, control gates and retained evidence turned a labour-intensive comparison into a repeatable assurance process. The client gained a clearer basis for payroll readiness decisions, with fewer billable hours spent preparing the data.
PAYROLL CHANGE · INDEPENDENT ASSURANCE
How much of your testing effort goes into preparing the data?
If your team is replacing a payroll system or spending too much time reconciling exports, talk to KJM about a repeatable comparison process and independent review.
Kira
KJM virtual employee
Ready to help
