Some people think that configuring SaldeoSMART is just a matter of going through the settings and checking a few boxes. A document is supposed to be uploaded to the system, someone is supposed to approve it, the accounting department is supposed to see the data, and that’s the end of it. In practice, however, it is precisely these settings that contain decisions that later affect the day-to-day operations of the entire company: who sees the document, who can edit it, who has the right to approve it, who has permissions to delete data in specific modules, where the document will end up, what quality of data will reach the accounting department, and whether users will work within the system or continue to rely on emails, phone calls, and paper.
A checkbox like this isn’t just a minor technical setting. It represents a specific functionality, permission, or dependency between modules. Sometimes it affects workflow convenience, sometimes workflow logic, and sometimes data security. Permissions to delete data from the system in various modules are particularly sensitive, because if granted improperly, they can lead to a situation where information is deleted and cannot be recovered later. Therefore, a lack of understanding of SaldeoSMART’s settings and the relationships between them very quickly leads not only to day-to-day work problems but also to risks associated with excessive permissions.
The biggest problem, then, isn’t that SaldeoSMART is a bad tool. On the contrary, SaldeoSMART is a very good program, but you have to know how to use it effectively. If a company has the system in place, yet documents still take a long time to be approved, end up with the wrong people, statuses are determined over the phone, and requests for descriptions or explanations are sent via email, and some documents are still circulating in paper form, then it’s worth considering a reimplementation of SaldeoSMART. Not replacing the system, but reorganizing the configuration, because in most such cases its capabilities have not been properly understood, integrated, and utilized within the company’s actual processes.
Reimplementation begins when the system is formally operational but does not solve the problems
SaldeoSMART is already part of daily operations at many companies. Documents are uploaded to the system, users have accounts, the accounting department can view the data, and the workflow formally exists. Despite this, the company continues to waste time in the same areas. Documents do not flow smoothly through the process, subject-matter experts do not capture costs at the source, the accounting department takes on responsibilities that shouldn’t fall to it, and employees look for shortcuts outside the system because they don’t know what to do or their roles aren’t properly defined.
This is precisely where reimplementation comes into play. It’s not about system development driven by the fact that the company has grown or that new departments, subsidiaries, or projects have been added. That may require additional configuration and increased use of the system. Reimplementation applies to situations where SaldeoSMART’s current operation has not reflected the company’s actual work from the very beginning or for a long time. The system is in place, but it does not guide users through the process, does not utilize its full capabilities, and does not alleviate the organization’s workload as it should.
At Hakon Software, we most often carry out reimplementations for companies that we did not work with from the start or that are unaware of the full potential of SaldeoSMART. Clients we’ve managed from the start undergo process analysis, testing, and informed configuration decisions as early as the implementation phase. With reimplementations, we work with organizations that have a system but feel that something isn’t working right. Sometimes they can’t yet pinpoint the cause. They only know that the accounting department still has too much manual work, the people responsible for costs aren’t using the system, documents are piling up, and the company isn’t seeing the time savings it expected.
A configuration error rarely has just one consequence
If the SaldeoSMART configuration was handled too superficially, problems quickly begin to pile up. A document doesn’t reach the right person because the workflow doesn’t reflect the company’s chain of responsibility. Users have too broad permissions because it was easier to grant access “just in case.” Someone doesn’t have access to the information they need, so they ask the accounting department for help. The person who should verify the expense does not log into the system, so the administrative office or the accounting department prepares the description. The document’s status is unclear, so phone calls and emails start coming in.
In this situation, the system is not set up properly, either technically or organizationally. Technically, because the functions, permissions, document types, automations, and integrations have not been properly linked. Organizationally, because the configuration does not reflect how the company actually operates—who is responsible for costs, who has the subject-matter expertise, and who should make the decisions.
That’s why reimplementation isn’t just about fixing a single field or adding another approval step. First, you need to understand where the process is breaking down, which settings are causing problems, and why users are resorting to working outside the system. Only then can you configure SaldeoSMART so that its features start working together.
Substantive verification should take place at the source
In many companies, the burden of documenting records falls on the administrative office or the accounting department. This is only convenient at first glance. The administrative office can register a document, and the accounting department can evaluate it from an accounting perspective, but neither of these departments always has the knowledge to determine what the cost actually pertains to, whether the service was performed, whether the purchase was in accordance with the agreement, whether the delivery actually arrived, or whether the expense relates to a specific project, department, or the person responsible for the budget.
Substantive verification should take place at the source—that is, with the people who have knowledge of the cost. They are the ones who should confirm the validity of the expense, provide the required details for the document, or clarify any ambiguities. If these individuals do not log into the system, do not receive the appropriate tasks, or do not feel responsible for this stage of the workflow, the entire burden falls back on the administration and accounting departments.
In one of our reimplementation projects for a company in the construction industry, a key factor was shifting some of the responsibility outside the accounting department. Construction costs and documents related to project execution required the involvement of site managers, project managers, and logistics personnel. It was only after involving these individuals in the appropriate stages of the process that documents began to end up where they could actually be verified. The accounting department did not have to take on the role of a subject-matter expert, and the company gained better control over costs at the source.
A lack of proper settings very often shifts the workload to the accounting department
Accounting should not recreate information that may have been generated earlier in the process. If a document passes through the system without a proper substantive description, without confirmation from the responsible person, without information about the purpose of the purchase, or without an explanation of a non-standard situation, the accounting department begins to ask questions, search for information, make corrections, and set the document aside pending clarification.
This is not an effective use of the accounting department’s time. The role of the accounting department is to verify accuracy, process transactions, record documents in accordance with the rules, and prepare data for further processing. If the accounting department has to determine what a cost relates to or who should approve it, that means the earlier stages of the process were not set up properly.
Proper configuration of SaldeoSMART helps route some of the information to the people who actually have knowledge of the document. A subject matter expert can supplement the description, provide context for the cost, confirm that a service was performed, or offer an explanation. The approver can make a decision based on the relevant data. The accounting department receives a document with a clearer context and can focus on what falls within its purview.
That’s a significant difference. The point isn’t for the accounting department to lose control over the document. The point is that it shouldn’t be forced to do the work of people who should have provided the information earlier.
Permissions are one of the cornerstones of system security
In our reimplementations, we pay very close attention to permissions. This is an area that is often underestimated because it seems technical. However, permissions determine who can view documents, who can perform specific actions, who has access to sensitive data, and who can delete information from the system.
Excessive permissions are convenient only at first. They seem to speed up work because the user “has access to everything.” In practice, they can lead to chaos, errors, and risks. If a user has access to documents they shouldn’t see, a confidentiality issue arises. If they can perform an action that isn’t part of their role, the risk of a wrong decision increases. If they have permissions to delete data in modules where they shouldn’t, there’s a risk of losing information that cannot be recovered later.
Permissions that are too restrictive are also a problem. They hinder work, lead to more questions for the accounting department, and cause users to start circumventing the system. That’s why well-configured permissions involve neither restricting everything nor granting access “just to keep the peace”. They should be based on the user’s role, scope of responsibility, and the principle that everyone sees and performs only what they need to do for their work.
In one of the reimplementation projects for an organization comprising several companies and handling a large volume of documents, an audit revealed that some permissions had been granted too broadly, and some processes did not secure data as they should have. Streamlining access, workflows, and accounting settings was one of the key elements in regaining control over the process. With such a large volume of documents, even a single incorrect permission can have serious consequences.
A good configuration requires knowledge, testing, and talking to people
To fully leverage SaldeoSMART’s potential, you need to understand not only the system but also the people who will be using it. The accounting department sees things one way, the person approving expenses another, the project manager yet another, and management yet another. Each of these groups needs different information and performs different tasks, but they all work on the same document.
Even a well-designed process requires support once users start working with actual documents. That’s when questions, edge cases, uncertainty, and the need for quick clarification arise. If the client is left to handle this on their own, it’s easy to fall back into old habits: email, phone calls, Excel, and manually bypassing the system.
At Hakon Software, we view support as an integral part of the quality of our implementation. We answer phone calls, reply to emails, connect remotely, explain settings, and help resolve day-to-day issues. With us, there’s no bot instead of a conversation with a person. There’s a person on one end and a person on the other. This matters because many problems can be solved in 5–10 minutes if there’s someone on the other end who knows the system, understands the configuration, and can quickly find the cause.
We have invested our time, knowledge, and experience to help our clients not only get SaldeoSMART up and running, but also truly take advantage of its capabilities. For a company, the difference is very tangible: less downtime, less frustration, faster responses, and greater user confidence in the system.
When should you consider reimplementing SaldeoSMART?
It’s worth considering a reimplementation if your company is already using SaldeoSMART, but documents still take a long time to be approved, end up with the wrong people, and it’s difficult to check their status, users have permissions that are too broad or too narrow, the accounting department is still having to reconstruct information, and part of the process reverts to emails, phone calls, and additional reports. These are signs that the system is not operating at its full potential or that the configuration does not match the organization’s actual workflow.
You don’t always have to start from scratch. Often, you have to do something even harder: carefully analyze what already exists, keep the elements that work, and improve the ones that cause day-to-day problems. Reimplementation requires knowledge of the system, but also an understanding of the company, its responsibilities, data, decisions, and risks. Only then can SaldeoSMART stop being a place where documents end up and start being a tool that truly guides the company through the process.
At Hakon Software, we help with exactly these kinds of situations. We know where configuration errors most often occur, which features tend to go unused, which permissions pose a risk, and why documents get stuck even when a workflow has been implemented. We also know how to set up SaldeoSMART so that your company can reclaim time, restore order, and regain control over its documents.
Let’s start by talking about where your document workflow is losing time today.
📞 +48 532 454 856
📧 saldeo@hakon.pl
Editor’s Note: This article was prepared by Hakon Software based on the company’s own implementations, case studies, and the team’s experience. AI tools assisted us in organizing the material and editing it, while Hakon Software is responsible for the substance, content verification, and publication.
