Fixed asset and inventory Order-to-cash cross process

zap Audit keeps on developing

5 reading min.
Sophie Trommler

written by

Sophie Trommler

top view of businessman hand working with modern technology and digital layer effect as business strategy concept-1-174623-edited-449093-edited

The new version of zap Audit is currently in the beta phase and we have invested a great deal of time in preparing this new release, listened carefully to the conversations we have had with our customers and implemented some of the requests we have received from you. Of course, this has all been done to make it easier and more efficient for you, our customers, to work with zap Audit, for example, by further reducing false positives, or giving you the option to filter results by document type, account, customer, vendor, and much more. In this blog post, we will first discuss the new features in the area of indicators, before introducing the other new features step-by-step in forthcoming posts.


Indicator processes

The experienced reader will already be familiar with the different processes and can jump directly to the next section. For everyone else, a short explanation is provided here.

Each indicator that zap Audit applies to the data from SAP is assigned to exactly one type of process. We distinguish between four different types of processes:

  • Purchase-to-pay
  • Order-to-cash
  • Fixed assets and inventory
  • Cross-process

Purchase-to-pay, order-to-cash, as well as fixed assets and inventory will probably sound familiar to most readers. Nevertheless, here are a few typical examples of the three process types mentioned above:

  • Purchase-to-pay (duplicate payments / invoices paid twice)
  • Order-to-cash (missing VAT ID within the EU)
  • Fixed assets and inventory (investment with no scheduled depreciation, investment without acquisition costs)

On the other hand, the area of "cross-process" indicators is somewhat different. It arose from the consideration that certain indicators exist which cannot be unambiguously assigned to any of the three processes mentioned above. The well-known "Segregation of Duty" or "Superuser Activities" processes are some of the typical examples that fall into this category. If you take just a couple of minutes to think about why this is the case, it quickly becomes clear that there can be segregation of duty conflicts in purchase-to-pay, order-to-cash, as well as in fixed assets and inventory and so such indicators cannot be clearly assigned to one of the three areas. For this reason, we have introduced the idea of the "cross-process" process. So much for the different processes.


New features in the area of indicators

In the area of indicators, many new questions have been formulated, in addition to improvements made to a large number of existing indicators. These are briefly presented below with an example of the associated risk. An overview of the new indicators in zap Audit, as well as an example of the associated risk and a more detailed description can – as usual – be downloaded free-of-charge by clicking on the following link:




Note that the following list only covers the indicators which are new to zap Audit. Listing all the improvements would go beyond the scope of a single blog post.


Taxes, master data, bank accounts and much more in purchase-to-pay


Indicator Risk

VAT ID in vendor master data and invoice do not match

There is a risk of bad quality of master data concerning value added tax (VAT). This could result in possible errors in tax returns.

Insurance tax as input tax

There is the risk that insurance tax has been deducted as input tax. This is not permitted.

Early VAT deduction

Input tax (VAT) could be claimed in the wrong period because the document belongs in a future period.

Indications of duplicate payments in respect of incoming one-time invoices

There is a risk of duplicate payments and unnecessary loss of liquidity.

Payment to alternative bank account

There is a risk of fraudulent payments during the payment process.

Outgoing one-time vendor payments to the same bank account with seemingly different payees

There is a risk that the bank accounts used for some outgoing one-time payments are incorrect or that the wrong payee has been recorded.

Vendor pays from a bank account that is not in the master data

There is a risk that the bank master data has not been maintained properly.

Different vendors paid from the same bank account

There is a risk of poorly maintained vendor master data, especially with regard to the vendor bank account master data.

Vendor paid from various known and unknown bank accounts

The indicator checks payments to vendors, and although some of the bank details used could be found in the bank master data of the same vendor, others were not. There is a risk that bank accounts may have been used for transfers for which they were not intended.

Purchase order without request for proposal

There is the risk that requests for proposals have not been conducted.


Multiple new indicators in order-to-cash


Indicator Risk

Accounts receivables items for foreign customers without clearing in the fiscal year

There is the risk of fictitious revenues or accounts receivables.

VAT-ID in customer master data and invoice do not match

There is a risk of bad quality of master data concerning value added tax (VAT). This could result in possible errors in tax returns.

Rare reconciliation account in customer master data

There is the risk of a misstatement in the balance sheet if customers are assigned to wrong reconciliation accounts.


Changes in fixed assets and inventory


Indicator Risk

Asset without inventory number

There is the risk of non-existing assets (fake assets) or untraceable assets.

Unusual useful lifetime

There is the risk of wrong depreciation.


Cross-process indicators over time


Indicator Risk

FI documents with a long interval between document and entry date

There is the risk of transactions not being recorded timely.

Postings in other fiscal years

There is the risk that transactions have been posted into the wrong fiscal year (cut off).

Entry date prior to document date

There is the risk that there may have been input errors related to the document date or that documents have been faked, because a document cannot be entered into the system before the document date.

Credit memo with different tax key

There is the risk of incorrect VAT summary report because invoices and related credit notes have been handled differently with respect to VAT.


zapliance Newsletter label

Sign up to our newsletter
to receive latest news and updates every two weeks!

zapliance customer brands

Our recommendations to you