Talk to a Sage Intacct Expert 
Design starts with the operating model
Nonprofit & Social Services
Grant and program reporting
For existing or inherited implementations
Get back on track.
We recover Sage Intacct environments implemented elsewhere or inherited with unresolved issues, starting with evidence, not assumptions.
- 01Diagnose
- 02Stabilize
- 03Optimize
- 04Reimplement if needed
What this service is
A weak implementation is not a failed one.
Who it is for
- Environments implemented by another partner.
- Organizations that inherited Sage Intacct through staff or leadership changes.
- Finance teams that no longer trust their reports.
- Leaders deciding whether to repair the environment or start again.
When a Sage Intacct environment is not delivering what it should, the cause is usually specific and fixable. We find out what is really wrong, stabilize what matters most, and improve the rest. A weak implementation does not automatically mean reimplementation, and we will tell you honestly when it does.
How we help
- 01An evidence based diagnosisSymptoms traced to their causes, across the whole environment.
- 02Stability firstWhat threatens financial integrity and control is fixed first.
- 03Targeted improvementWorkarounds removed and processes simplified.
- 04An honest view on reimplementationRecommended only when the evidence supports it.
The problems we solve
Recognize where it is going wrong.
Problems usually show up in one of five areas. Each points to different causes, and changes where the recovery puts its weight.
- 01DiagnosePrimaryTrace report figures back to their source.PrimaryMap workarounds and approval paths.PrimaryTrace failures and who owns them.PrimaryReview roles, permissions and approval evidence.PrimaryFind where and why people work around the system.
- 02StabilizePrimaryReconcile balances and correct dimension use.LikelyRepair broken workflows and approvals.PrimaryAdd monitoring, alerts and safe retries.PrimaryRestore segregation and approval controls.LikelyClose open decisions and assign ownership.
- 03OptimizeLikelyRebuild reports on trusted dimensions.PrimarySimplify the process and remove workarounds.LikelyRedesign mappings with the Blueprint.PossibleTidy roles and automate approvals.PrimaryTrain by role and simplify tasks.
- 04Reimplement if neededOnly if the evidence supports itOnly if the chart or dimension design cannot support reporting.Only if the evidence supports itOnly if the configuration cannot support the operating model.Only if the evidence supports itRarely needed for integrations alone.Only if the evidence supports itOnly if the entity or security design needs reconstruction.Only if the evidence supports itOnly if core structures block adoption.
You may notice
- Unreliable financial reporting
- Excessive spreadsheet reconstruction
- Weak dimension design
- Project or job costs that cannot be trusted
- Unresolved converted balances
What usually causes it
- Dimensions designed or applied inconsistently.
- Converted balances never fully reconciled.
What we examine
- Reconciliations of GL, subledgers and opening balances.
- The reports being rebuilt outside Sage Intacct.
You may notice
- Recurring workarounds
- Broken workflows
- Manual journals compensating for configuration problems
- A slow or worsening close
What usually causes it
- Workflows configured before the process was agreed.
- Manual journals covering configuration gaps.
What we examine
- The list of recurring workarounds.
- Where approvals and the close actually stall.
You may notice
- Integrations failing without adequate monitoring
- Duplicate or missing records between systems
- Unclear ownership of each connection
What usually causes it
- No monitoring, alerts or owner for failures.
- No agreed system of record.
What we examine
- The history of failed transactions.
- Integration reconciliations to the ledger.
You may notice
- Security or permission problems
- Controls being bypassed
- Approvals happening outside the system
What usually causes it
- Roles accumulated without review.
- Approvals moved outside the system.
What we examine
- Current role and permission assignments.
- Approval evidence for a sample of transactions.
You may notice
- Poor user adoption
- Unresolved implementation decisions
- Parallel spreadsheets carrying financial logic
What usually causes it
- Implementation decisions left open.
- No clear administrator ownership.
What we examine
- Where people work outside the system, and why.
- The decisions that were never closed.
Diagnose → Stabilize → Optimize → Reimplement if needed.
Choose the recovery path based on evidence.
Our recovery approach moves in four steps. Most environments recover in the first three. The fourth is used only when the evidence supports it.
Stage 1 of 4 · Diagnose
Find out what is really wrong, and why.
We review the whole environment and talk to the people who use it every day. The Implementation Health Check gives a structured starting point.
What we do
- Review configuration, dimensions, workflows, integrations, security, reports and converted balances.
- Interview finance users, approvers and administrators.
- Separate symptoms from their underlying causes.
The outcome
Findings you can act on, with a recommended recovery path.
Stage 2 of 4 · Stabilize
Fix what threatens financial integrity and control first.
Before improving anything, we make the environment reliable enough to close the books with confidence.
What we do
- Reconcile balances and correct how dimensions are used.
- Repair broken workflows and failing integrations.
- Restore permissions, segregation and approval controls.
The outcome
An environment you can rely on for the close.
Stage 3 of 4 · Optimize
Make it work the way your organization needs.
With stability in place, we remove workarounds and shape the environment around how your team actually works.
What we do
- Remove recurring workarounds and manual journals.
- Rebuild reports on trusted dimensions.
- Simplify processes and train people by role.
The outcome
Less manual effort, and reports people trust.
Stage 4 of 4 · Reimplement if needed
Start again only when repair is not practical.
Reimplementation becomes a serious option only when the architecture cannot support the required operating model, configuration debt makes repair impractical, or core structures require major reconstruction.
What we do
- Show the evidence behind the recommendation.
- Keep what still works, such as data and processes worth preserving.
- Plan the reimplementation with our implementation methodology.
The outcome
A controlled path forward, decided on evidence rather than frustration.
How we work on a recovery
Recovery without blame or guesswork.
- 01Evidence before recommendations
We diagnose before we propose anything, and share what we find.
- 02Integrity first
Balances, controls and the close come before improvements.
- 03No blame
The goal is a working environment, not a verdict on how it was built.
- 04Preserve what works
Recovery keeps the good decisions and fixes the rest.
- 05Reimplementation last
A low score alone never decides it. The evidence does.
How healthy is your environment?
The Implementation Health Check gives a structured first view in a few minutes. It informs the decision; a score alone never decides it. No registration. No email required.
A sample finding
Fragile, not failed. Core posting appears stable, but reporting, workflow adoption and manual workarounds are creating ongoing risk. The evidence points to stabilization and optimization rather than reimplementation.