4 erp tips for fiar compliance

WH

ITE

PAPE

R

4 ERP TIPS FOR FIAR COMPLIANCE

CONTENT

1. IDENTIFY AND CLOSE GAPS...FIX TODAY’S PROBLEMS TODAY! ................................. 2

2. DON’T ALWAYS LOOK TO MAJOR PROVIDERS FOR THE SOLUTION... UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF MRO .................................................................................................. 3

3. CANNOT DELEGATE COMPLIANCE ............................................................................ 4

4. CHOOSE WISELY ...................................................................................................... 5

CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 7

FOUR WAVES .............................................................................................................. 8

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY? ......................................................................................... 9

ABOUT IFS ............................................................................................................... 11

1



BY GREGORY G STANLEYUSAF PRINCIAL DEPUTY FOR LOGISTICS, RETIRED

As the former Deputy A4L, one of my responsibilities was managing logistics compliance with the Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) for the United States Air Force. So I can tell you from firsthand experience that Congress is very serious about auditability. Anyone in military command or in the executive ranks of the aerospace industry knows auditability has been and continues to be a perennial issue and a long term problem across all branches of service. Congress forced our hand with Section 1003 of the 2010 Federal Defense Authorization Act. This piece of legislation requires that DoD be auditable by 2017 and to pass a Government Accountability Office audit process. The former Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, actually increased the burden, claiming that 2017 is not soon enough, and that 2015 would be the goal. Chuck Hagel, the current Secretary of Defense, has been silent on the issue of the advanced goal of 2015. So 2017 is what the law says, and that is what everybody is working toward.

As of mid-2013, Hagel’s stated priorities per Under Secretary of Defense/Comptroller Robert Hale are:

• GeneralFund(GF)StatementofBudgetaryResources(SBR)validatedasauditready by September 30, 2014.

• Existenceandcompletenessauditreadinessofmissioncriticalassets.

• FullauditreadinessachievedforallfinancialstatementsbySeptember30,2017.

In achieving these goals, and in assessing why auditability has been such a persistent problem,itishardtoignoretherolethatenterpriseresourceplanning(ERP)soft-warehasplayed.Or,moresuccinctly,itishardtoignoretherolesERPhasnotplayedinachievingauditability.EachbranchofservicearguablyhasstruggledwiththeirownERPimplementations,andineachcasehascomeawaywithimplementa-tions that fail to meet expectations and have not successfully addressed the problem of auditability.

2


There are many reasons for these expensive false starts (not all inclusive nor in any order):

1. Military ERP implementations have been ambitious, multi-year projects. Rotation of command means that one senior officer is often not involved in an implementation long enough to steer it towards success.

2. DoD’s assertion that a system must conform to the legacy processes and support existing data structures, as opposed to DoD learning to update processes and accept modern tried and true business processes.

3. Overly complex and all-inclusive software requirements, as well as software products that present barriers to successful implementation.

4. Ignoring the role of depots, and the fact that depots have the potential for the largest savings. Depots are the closest operation the DoD has to a commercial maintenance, repair, and overhaul facility. This makes the depots the place to implement and execute any implementation first.

5. System providers and integrators with sometimes divergent goals and financial rewards/incentives find it convenient to blame one another for failures, missing deliveries and milestones.

Inthiswhitepaper,wewon’tengageinanyfingerpointingastowhyERPhasthusfar not delivered the results we all would have liked. Nor will we delve into the timetable for compliance. The timetable for various compliance elements for the DoD, financial service providers and branches of service will continue to change as per Congressional requirements and the Secretary’s policy. The Under Secretary publishes regular updates and guidance on compliance efforts. Instead,we’llsharereal-worldinsightsonhowERPcanbedoneanddonemore

effectively so as to meet the goals set forth by the FIAR legislation, Department policy and formal guidance and the Secretary.

1. IDENTIFY AND CLOSE GAPS...FIX TODAY’S PROBLEMS TODAY!OnechangethatFIARbringstotheERPimplementationquestionisthecertainunderstanding that we don’t have forever to get this done. And we don’t have time torepeatourhistoricalapproachtoERP.Thereisjustnottimefor“bigA”softwareacquisition process in the DoD, followed by years of workshopping and process re-engineering. In terms of this process, 2017 is not that far off. And frankly, this processhasnotworkedsowellforussofar.AlbertEinsteindefinedinsanityasdoing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So I think wecanallagreethatwecan’tgoaboutERPthewaywehaveinthepast,withmulti-year, big bang implementations, and overly ambitious projects. Instead, we are going to need to assess the technology we currently have in place and identify those gaps, the unsolved problems that are eating our lunch and

3


preventing us from meeting our auditability goals. Starting with the issues GAO presents to us regularly, we should have a great idea of where to start on solving today’s problems. We are not, after billions of dollars and years spent on first MRP andthenERP,sufferingfromalackofERP.WearebesetwithERP,however,thatis often incomplete given our needs. In a matter of speaking, we have a partial ship constructed and need to plug the holes in the hull. Rather than starting from square one on another multi-year program, we need to identify these holes—these problems —and then specify solutions. These solutions must be implemented in weeks and months rather than years. They must not involve dollar figures that run into the billions. These have got to be quick turn, low cost, highly effective, value added, truly open and integratable implementations to solve problems that we have right now.

2. DON’T ALWAYS LOOK TO MAJOR PROVIDERS FOR THE SOLUTION... UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF MROMuch of the attention paid to the DoD budgeting is focused on new systems acqui-sitions.Butthoseofuswithbootsonthegroundknowthatprocurementaccountsfor only about $10 billion of the budget, while maintenance and operations comes to morethan$60billion.WhatthismeanstousisthattheabilityofourERPandother enterprise-wide technology to support maintenance, repair and overhaul, systems sustainment, preventative maintenance, spare parts inventory and the related supply chains cannot be underestimated when it comes to auditability.ThatmeansthatourERPsystemsandothersystemsweusetoclosethevarious

gaps we are facing need to do two things. First, they need to help us take care of the weapons systems, vehicles and assets that we already have. That includes the cost for ongoing maintenance, spare parts inventories, and eventual retirement and decom-missioning. It needs to manage the readiness of each of these assets for active service, the value of the asset given its current condition and the cost to operate it as it progresses through its lifecycle. It also means that as we acquire new assets and weaponssystems,ERPmustallowustoautomaticallybuildthistypeofassetlife-cycle management capability and resulting auditability into the appropriations process. We must be able to account for not just the acquisition cost but the mainte-nance, operations and sustainment, whether cost derives from performance based logistics(PBL)contracts,sparesandrepairsinventories,consumablesorothercostdrivers.

It is hard to underestimate how granular a function MRO and maintenance/ supply chain management can be. There are thousands upon thousands of weapons systems, aircraft, vehicles, various classes of marine vessels and facilities that must beaccountedfor.Buteachofthosecontainsandissustainedbycomponents, subcomponents, bit parts and consumables. These parts and assemblies must be

4


accounted for as well. Sometimes these components, subcomponents and parts are contained in the asset itself. Sometimes they are in inventory, in a warehouse, and may be in varying states of repair or serviceability. That means in order to achieve auditability,weneednotonlyERP,whichisnormallyassociatedwithrepetitivebusiness processes, but something along the lines of enterprise asset management (EAM)orassetlifecyclemanagement(ALM),whichdeal,respectively,withtheoptimal operation, maintenance and sustainment of capital assets and the through-life accounting and optimization of investments made in those assets.

In order to achieve true auditability, our appropriations process must also start from this standpoint of asset lifecycle management, and that process must be built intotheunderlyingERPandothersystemsusedtoacquire,sustain,maintainandaccountforourassets.MilitaryERPmust,duringthesystemsacquisitionprocess,capture asset data including manuals, maintenance schedules, parts specifications and other mission critical data from the original equipment manufacturers. That data must then follow the asset through deployment to the operating commands and then into the stock control and distribution systems and processes that are already in place.

From my experience, this is a major barrier to auditability. Not only do our legacy systems/processes fail to adequately plan for, budget and track the cost of the assetlifecycleduringappropriations.Buttheyalsofailtoallowfullaccountingandmanagement of our legacy weapons systems, including all of the various equipment and weapons systems that are maintained and sustained through contractors.

The complexity of this problem cannot be underestimated. Apart from newly acquired and legacy weapons systems that are operational, the DoD has facilities that have been mothballed and facilities that have been combined, and there are parts and equipment from weapons systems in warehouses and storage facilities that are currently not adequately, if at all, inventoried and tracked. This is one of the majorgapsthatexistinglargescaleERPimplementationsprobably,inmanycases,failed to address. Another gap across the branches of service may be the ability to intelligently project adequate spares and repairs inventory levels and sustainment costs across the lifecycle of the asset. ClosingfunctionalgapsintheareaofMRO,EAM,sparesandrepairssupply

chain management and logistics will be one important way that existing military ERPcanbeaugmentedthroughtargeted,focusedprojectsinordertoachieve compliance.

3. CANNOT DELEGATE COMPLIANCEThe DoD has over the decades cut down the number of organizations it does business withdirectly,fromhundredstojustafewmajorOEMs.Thismeansthattheselargesystems integrators and original equipment manufacturers must be a large part of

5


the solution to FIAR. They possess data and expertise on the different systems they sustain for the military that need to be part of the auditability process. However, what I learned firsthand is that we cannot rely completely on these supply chain partners for compliance just by calling out a data item description in a contract that requires input into a government system.

In the past, we have required these vendors to enter data on contracted operations, projects, weapons systems and assets directly into systems that we maintain. We have experienced mixed results with this, in part because we must be able to ascer-tainthatdataenteredinthesesystemsconformstothefactsontheground.Effortsare already underway, and have been since 2012, to ensure partners’ systems are auditable. We must therefore work closely with them to ensure we can effectively document expenditures, status of and value realized from multi-year programs like research and development efforts and manufacturing or systems completion efforts.

One way our private sector partners can help us is by allowing us to imitate someoftheERPsystemstheyusetomanageauditableandpredictablesustainmentprogramslikePBLprojects.ThePBLprocesshashaditsdetractors,butonthewhole, it has yielded some impressive results as private contractors which obviously must be auditable as public companies, have successfully sustained large military weapons systems. There are obviously differences between the branches of service and these private contractors, but to a large extent, what is good for the goose will probably be good for the gander. I suggest we learn as much as we can about the MRO, logistics and sustainment systems used by these major systems integrators involvedinPBLandemulatethemwhereitmakessenseforustodoso.

4. CHOOSE WISELYSowefindourselves,asmilitaryorganizations,saddledwithextensiveERPsystems(orfailedattemptsatERPsystems)thathavebeenimplementedtovaryingextents,across each branch of service. As we have discussed, revisiting the process that got us into those implementations would be insanity. From my experience, I would look for four things in systems used to move the military towards auditability.

1. Goldilocks zone In choosing systems to close the gaps that remain after these large, all-encompassing systems, we need to walk a tightrope of sorts between two extremes. First of all, we need to avoid selecting systems and scopes of work that are as vast and unfocused as our past projects. Second of all, we need to ensure that systems and scopes we do select are broad enough to address the full lifecycle of assets and projects that we are involved in as military organiza-tions. That means we need to find that rare offering that can be integrated with our existing systems to close these specific gaps, allowing us to bring

6


broad and auditable management practices across asset lifecycles, sustainment and logistics processes. It is important for us to focus on solving specific problems that can be solved with software that can be rapidly integrated withindividualsolutionsandintoabiggerMRO/ERPsystem.

2. Can it be implemented? Onceweidentifysystemsthatontheirfaceareinthisjustright“Goldilockszone,”wewillneedtoensurethattheycanbeimplementedandhavehistor-ically been implemented in similar settings in a timely and cost-effective manner. This means that implementation needs to be measured in weeks and months as opposed to years or decades. And cost must not be in the billions. As we determine if the software can be implemented on a short timeline and within predictable cost parameters, we can’t take a vendor’s word that it can be done. We need visual confirmation. A vendor ought to be able to produce references of customers with similar problems that have been solved with the software. Site visits and references are the proof we need before going forward. Go visit actual implementations, talk to users and see the system in action.

3. Multiple data sources Since we have multiple existing systems, software selected to close our audit-ability gaps must be open and extensible. That is, they need to be able to support bidirectional integrations or interfaces with a multitude of sources, including handheld devices, mobile applications, automated capture like RFID, and existing accounting or supply chain systems. To the extent that we have systems in place that are working for us, we don’t want to necessarily rip and replace them. So gaps must be filled with software that is built on open standards and application program interfaces (APIs) that can be easily exposed as web services. In some cases, legacy software systems and our new, gap-filling software may be modifying the same data set. Decisions will need to be made as to which system contains the master data for any given businessfunction,asset,supplychainorasset.Butoncethatdecisionismade, there should be no duplicate entry or issue with auditability as there is one version of the truth across all of our software systems. One key concept when it comes to the ability to accept data from multiple sourcesisthatofusabilityanditsrealimpactonauditability.Eveninahighlyregimented system like the military, systems that are too byzantine and present too many culture to end users will not be used as fully or completely as those that offer streamlined, direct routes to getting a task done. The weakest link to auditability may be that airman or soldier walking through a warehouse or arsenal trying to pull something from inventory, or that tech-nician working on a turbine on a chopper or a navigation system on a Humvee.Eithertheyareadequatelyrecordingsuppliesandpartsthey

7


consume or take out of stock or they are not. And a lot of that has to do with whether they can successfully use the endpoint systems of our enter-prise solutions in their day-to-day work. Intuitive usability, mobility, the ability to support tablet computers, bar code scanners and even mobile apps aimed directly at MRO, are all key factors, really, in auditability.

4. Decision support Justaswedon’thavetimeormoneytoengageinmoremulti-yearERP selections, neither do we have time to implement large, standalone business analytics and data warehouse solutions. So these gap-filling systems must also contain embedded analytics that help us do our jobs as military administrators.

CONCLUSIONLike Dick Armey is quoted as saying, if you run over a skunk in the road, it never makes sense to go back and look at it. Just keep going. And that is exactly what we needtodowithourERPsystemsasthisauditabilitydeadlinelooms.

As we find our way forward, we need to look forward, not backward, and do things differently than we have before. In classic executive fashion, we need to iden-tify the specific problems that prevent us from being auditable today, and we need to fix them. Fixing them will involve identifying and implementing agile, powerful, yet straightforward, software solutions that can address very specific gaps in our cur-rent portfolio of implemented software.

Greg Stanley, a member of the Senior Executive Service, retired in 2011 as USAF Principal Deputy for Logistics (A4L). In his previous position, Mr. Stanley was the Senior Executive leading the Air Force Depot Maintenance facility at Warner Robins Air Logistics Center, and prior to that the senior civilian in the Fighter/Bomber Acquisition Wing at the Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright Patterson. He holds a MBA with concentration in finance/economics and is certified at the highest level (level III) from the Defense Acquisition University in three different fields: acquisition program management, logistics, and financial management/cost estimating.

8


Wave 1APPROPRIATIONS RECEIVED AUDITWave 1 processes and related controls include activities performed to control and record transac-tions related to: (1) the receipt of the budget (“Appropriations Received”), and (2) the distribution of the budget to the major command level. Once audit readiness is achieved, the Department’s annual funding has been accurately recorded, controlled, and allocated, and that the funds have been accurately recorded in its financial statements will be demonstrated to Congress and the public. Successful achievement of Wave 1 will instill more congressional confidence in the Department’s budget processes and budget requests. The processes in this wave include Budget-to-Report, including Fund Balance with Treasury (FBWT).

Wave 2SBR AUDIT, INCLUDES FUND BALANCE WITH TREASURYThe SBR presents all budgetary resources that a reporting entity has available, the status of those resources at period end, a reconciliation of changes in obligated balances from the beginning to the end of the period, and cash collections and disburse-ments for the period reported.

A Wave 2 SBR audit includes all processes, internal controls, systems and supporting documen-tation that must be audit ready before the SBR can be audited. Significant processes in this wave include Procure-to-Pay, Hire-to-Retire, Order-to-Cash, and Budget-to-Report, including Fund Balance with Treasury (FBWT).

Wave 3MISSION CRITICAL ASSET EXISTENCE & COMPLETENESS AUDITMission Critical Asset E&C audit primarily ensures that all assets recorded in their APSR exist (Existence), and all of the reporting entities’ assets are recorded in their system (Completeness). It also ensures that reporting entities have the right to report all assets (Rights), and assets are consistently categorized, summarized, and reported period to period (Presentation and Disclosure). The asset categories included in this wave include ME, RP, INV, OM&S, and GE. This allows the Department and its reporting entities to demonstrate the E&C of its assets before focusing on the reported value of the assets.

Wave 4FULL AUDITING EXCEPT FOR EXISTING ASSET VALUATIONTo achieve audit readiness for Wave 4, a reporting entity must:• Have designed and implemented control activi-

ties that limit the risk of material misstatements by meeting all relevant KCOs;

• Be able to support account transactions and balances with sufficient audit evidence defined as KSDs supplemented with the reporting entity’s own documentation requirements.

Reporting entities must test their control activities and supporting documentation to ensure audit readiness. Auditors will need to test both controls and supporting documentation to support their audit opinion. A high reliance on internal controls yields a more effective and efficient audit, lowering the cost of the audit and the impact on the reporting entity personnel and operations.

FOUR WAVESGuidance from the Undersecretary of Defense outlines four waves, or phases, or FIAR compliance

9


WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

Here is the actual founding legislation for FIAR, as contained in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2010.

SEC. 1003. AUDIT READINESS OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

(a) FINANCIAL IMPROVEMENT AUDIT READINESS PLAN.—(1) IN GENERAL.—The Chief Management Officer of the Department of Defense shall, in consultation with the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), develop and maintain a plan to be known as the “Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness Plan.”

(2) ELEMENTS.—The plan required by paragraph (1) shall—

(A) describe specific actions to be taken and the costs associated with— (i) correcting the financial manage-ment deficiencies that impair the ability of the Department of Defense to prepare timely, reliable, and com-plete financial management information; and (ii) ensuring the financial statements of the Department of Defense are validated as ready for audit by not later than September 30, 2017;

(B) systematically tie the actions described under subparagraph (A) to process and control improvements and business systems modernization efforts described in the business enterprise architecture and transi-tion plan required by section 2222 of title 10, United States Code;

(C) prioritize— (i) improving the budgetary information of the Department of Defense, in order to achieve an unqualified audit opinion on the Department’s statements of budgetary resources; and (ii) as a secondary goal, improving the accuracy and reliability of management information on the Department’s mission-critical assets (military and general equipment, real property, inventory, and operating materials and supplies) and validating its accuracy through existence and completeness audits; and

(D) include interim goals, including— (i) the objective of ensuring that the financial statement of each of the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, the Department of the Air Force, and the Defense Logistics Agency is validated as ready for audit: and (ii) a schedule setting forth milestones for elements of the military departments and financial statements of the military departments to be made ready for audit as part of the progress required to meet the objectives established pursuant to clause (i) of this subparagraph and clause (ii) of subparagraph (A) of this paragraph.

(b) SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS ON FINANCIAL IMPROVEMENT AND AUDIT READINESS PLAN.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than May 15 and November 15 each year, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the status of the implemen-tation by the Department of Defense of the Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness Plan required by subsection (a).

10


(2) ELEMENTS.—Each report under paragraph (1) shall include, at a minimum—

(A) an overview of the steps the Department has taken or plans to take to meet the objectives specified in subsection (a)(2)(A), including progress toward achieving the interim goals and milestone schedule estab-lished pursuant to subsection (a)(2)(D); and

(B) a description of any impediments identified in the efforts of the Department to meet such objectives, and of the actions the Department has taken or plans to take to address such impediments.

(3) ADDITIONAL ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED IN FIRST REPORT.—The first report submitted under paragraph (1) after the date of the enactment of this Act shall address, in addition to the elements required by paragraph (2), the actions taken or to be taken by the Department as follows:

(A) To develop standardized guidance for financial improvement plans by components of the Department.

(B) To establish a baseline of financial management capabilities and weaknesses at the component level of the Department.

(C) To provide results-oriented metrics for measuring and reporting quantifiable results toward addressing financial management deficiencies.

(D) To define the oversight roles of the Chief Management Officer of the Department of Defense, the chief management officers of the military departments, and other appropriate elements of the Department to ensure that the requirements of the Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness Plan are carried out.

(E) To assign accountability for carrying out specific elements of the Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness Plan to appropriate officials and organizations at the component level of the Department.

(F) To develop mechanisms to track budgets and expenditures for the implementation of the requirements of the Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness Plan.

(G) To develop a mechanism to conduct audits of the military intelligence programs and agencies and to submit audited financial statements for such agencies to Congress in a classified manner.

(c) RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING LAW.—The requirements of this section shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of section 1008 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107–107; 115 Stat. 1204; 10 U.S.C. 2222 note).

En23

53-1

Pro

duct

ion:

IFS

Corp

orat

e M

arke

ting,

Aug

ust 2

013.

ABOUT IFS IFS is a public company (OMX STO: IFS) founded in 1983 that develops, supplies, and implements IFS Applications™, a component-based extended ERP suite built on SOA technology. IFS focuses on agile businesses where any of four core processes are strategic: service & asset management, manufacturing, supply chain and projects. The company has more than 2,000 customers and is present in 50+ countries with 2,800 employees in total.

More details can be found at www.IFSWORLD.com. For further information, e-mail to [email protected]

www.IFSWORLD.comTHIS DOCUMENT MAY CONTAIN STATEMENTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE FUNCTIONALIT Y FOR IFS’ SOFTWARE PRODUCTS AND TECHNOLOGY. SUCH STATEMENT S OF FUTURE FUNCTIONALIT Y ARE FOR INFORMATION PURP OSES ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRE TED A S AN Y C OMMITMENT OR REPRESENTAT ION. IFS AND ALL IFS PRODUCT NAMES ARE TR ADEMARKS OF IFS . THE NAMES OF ACTUAL C OMPANIES AND PRODUCT S MENTIONED HEREIN MAY BE THE TR ADEMARKS OF THEIR RESPECT IVE OWNERS.

IFS AB ©2013

AMERICAS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +1 888 437 4968

ARGENTINA, BRAZIL, CANADA, MEXICO, UNITED STATES

ASIA PACIFIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +65 63 33 33 00

AUSTRALIA, INDONESIA, JAPAN, MALAYSIA, NEW ZEALAND, PHILIPPINES, PR CHINA, SINGAPORE, THAILAND

EUROPE EAST AND CENTRAL ASIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +48 22 577 45 00

BALKANS, CZECH REPUBLIC, GEORGIA, HUNGARY, ISRAEL, KAZAKHSTAN, POLAND, RUSSIA AND CIS, SLOVAKIA, TURKEY, UKRAINE

EUROPE CENTRAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +49 9131 77 340

AUSTRIA, BELGIUM, GERMANY, ITALY, NETHERLANDS, SWITZERLAND

EUROPE WEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +44 1494 428 900

FRANCE, IRELAND, PORTUGAL, SPAIN, UNITED KINGDOM

MIDDLE EAST AND AFRICA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .+971 4390 0888

INDIA, SOUTH AFRICA, SRI LANKA, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES

NORDIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .+46 13 460 4000

DENMARK, NORWAY, SWEDEN

FINLAND AND THE BALTIC AREA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +358 102 17 9300

ESTONIA, FINLAND, LATVIA, LITHUANIA

4 erp tips for fiar compliance

News & Politics