FIN.19:4.2 - Recover the conflict from work that can actually occur

Start with the commitment, payment or decision that cannot be reconciled, and the useful result it threatens. Follow one representative occurrence far enough to see who supplied the information, who made the choice and what became binding. A treasury procedure may require a common forecast while the investment team actually commits before that forecast is available. The procedure and the occurrence then describe different things; changing the diagram alone will not resolve the conflict.

For a proposed arrangement, use a stated prospective case. Identify the future work and the conditions needed for it to occur. A design for a shared treasury centre is not evidence that local forecasts reach it, its bank access works or subsidiaries can use its funding. Keep those implementation questions available for the decision without inventing past performance.

Recover the participants by what they contribute to this result. The operating unit may know the likely receipt date, central finance may compare capital uses, treasury may obtain funding and a separately authorized person may release a payment. Several contributions can overlap in time and one person can make several of them. Their relationship is not necessarily a hierarchy or a compulsory sequence of departments.

Name the financial constraint before the organizational remedy. If the problem is only that two models use different bank opening balances, a reconciled position may be enough. If both use the same balance but each can irrevocably allocate it without seeing the other, the decision arrangement itself matters. These cases require different changes even though both may appear as “poor coordination.”