For professional services firms
The judgment is your people's. The method should be the firm's. Wikidoc writes down how the firm delivers, trains every hire in it, and keeps a record of the reviews clients and insurers ask about.
An evidence pack covering process, version history, and who reviewed what and when. A due-diligence questionnaire stops being a week of someone's life.
A process map of your highest-volume engagement, with an owner on every step. When a senior leaves, the method doesn't leave with them.
Named approvers on the review gates. Self-approval is blocked, so 'we always review' becomes a record instead of a claim.
A role-based program in the firm's method, certified before client work. Onboarding stops depending on which partner had a free month.
Example
A 20-person accounting practice heads into busy season. The partners map the year-end engagement once, with a named reviewer on each gate. Every engagement runs on that checklist, and a preparer can't approve their own work. When a client's insurer asks how reviews are done, the practice exports the process and the review records instead of writing an explanation from memory.
Every engagement follows the same method and the same review gates, whoever picked up the file.
Named approvers and timestamps turn "we always review" into a record a client or insurer can see.
Every hire is trained and certified in the firm's method before they touch client work.
Process and review evidence is ready to export or share, instead of rebuilt for each questionnaire.
The judgment is bespoke; the process around it rarely is. Intake, conflict checks, scoping, workpapers, review, sign-off and billing run the same way on almost every engagement. Documenting those is what gives your people room to spend their judgment on the part that's actually bespoke.
That request is usually the trigger for buying this. You can export the process map, the SOPs and the completion evidence as PDF or CSV, or publish a read-only portal the client can look at without joining your workspace.
We won't claim it satisfies any specific body; that depends on your obligations. What Wikidoc produces is the underlying evidence they ask for: approved current procedures, version history, and an append-only record of who did and reviewed what, with timestamps.
Keep it. It runs time, billing and the client record, and it's good at that. What it can't tell you is whether the review step was actually performed on a given engagement, because it doesn't know what your review step is. That's the layer Wikidoc adds on top.
