01 / 12
Memorres · Confidential
We have one problem statement
and one programme built around it.
You said: accounting firms want automation and AI — but how do we reach them, sell to them, and understand their workflows?
This is our answer.
This document presents the Accounting Workflow Clarity Programme — the market entry strategy Memorres has built to answer that question. It covers the problem we identified, our approach, how we plan to reach the market, and what we need from you to proceed.
02 / 12
The Market Problem
Every accounting firm wants automation.
Almost none are ready for it.
What we are seeing in the market
→
AI and automation demand is real
Accounting firms are being told — by platforms, advisors, and the market — that they need to automate. Many are actively looking for how.
→
But their workflows are not ready
The tools are there. Xero, Karbon, FYI Docs, Ignition — the stack exists. What does not exist is a clear workflow logic connecting people, tasks, and decisions.
→
So automation attempts keep failing
A firm automates a broken process and gets a broken result faster. The problem moves, it does not disappear. The founder is still the fallback. The manual effort comes back.
→
Growth through acquisition makes it worse
When a firm acquires another practice, it does not just acquire the clients and revenue. It acquires the broken workflows too. Without clarity first, two unclear processes become one larger, more complicated mess.
The real dynamic
Accounting firms use Xero, Karbon, FYI Docs, and Ignition because they need to. These tools are part of how they operate.
But owning these tools does not mean their workflows are clear. A firm can have every tool in the stack and still run entirely on people remembering what to do next.
And when that firm grows — whether by hiring, by winning new clients, or by acquiring another practice — the broken workflow scales with it.
That gap — between having tools and having workflow clarity — is where this programme lives.
03 / 12
What We Found Underneath
They call it being busy.
We call it workflow dependency.
How the buyer describes it
"I'm the last checkpoint for everything. If I don't check it, it doesn't get done right."
Practice Owner · 18-person firm
"We have Karbon and Xero — but the team still sends me WhatsApps asking what to do next."
Partner · 22-person firm
"I hired a practice manager to take things off my plate. Now I'm managing the practice manager."
Founder · 14-person firm
"We acquired a smaller firm last year. We thought it would add capacity. It added their chaos on top of ours."
Partner · 34-person firm · post-acquisition
"I work 12, sometimes 15 hours a day. My team thinks I love the job. The truth is I cannot leave — because if I do, something breaks."
Founder · 20-person firm
What this actually means
→
Work depends on people, not process
When a task has to move, someone has to remember to push it. There is no trigger, no ownership, no automatic next step.
→
Senior people absorb all the exceptions
Anything outside the standard path comes back to the founder, partner, or senior accountant — because there is no documented exception logic.
→
The same manual steps repeat every month
Document chasing, status checking, approval reminders — these are structural. They keep coming back because the workflow was never designed to handle them.
→
Acquisition multiplies the problem
Merging with or acquiring another firm does not fix broken workflows — it inherits them. Two unclear processes merge into one larger, harder-to-manage one. The founder ends up carrying both firms on their back.
04 / 12
The Memorres Insight
They did not come to us asking
for workflow clarity. They asked for automation.
What they ask for
"Can you automate our client onboarding?"
"We need an AI solution for document collection."
"Build us something to reduce the manual work."
Every other provider takes this request at face value and starts building. We do not.
What we ask instead
"Before we automate anything — where does your workflow depend on people remembering, chasing, or rescuing?"
"Is the process clear enough, consistent enough, and owned clearly enough to automate responsibly?"
"You are working 12 to 15 hours a day. Let us find where those hours are actually going — and why the work keeps coming back to you personally."
This is not a delay. This is the step that makes the automation actually hold — and makes Memorres different from every other provider in the room.
05 / 12
Who We Are Targeting
Not all accounting firms.
The ones where workflow complexity is already visible.
The firm we are looking for
| Geography | Australia |
| Firm type | Accounting, bookkeeping, advisory, virtual CFO, cloud-accounting |
| Size range | Primarily 10–30 staff · Outer boundary 5–50 |
| Ownership | Owner-led, partner-led, or founder-led |
| Tools they use | Xero, Karbon, FYI Docs, Ignition, Dext — tools are a signal, not the qualifier |
| Real qualifier | Work moves across people, deadlines, clients, and reviews — and it still depends on someone rescuing it |
| Primary buyer | Founder, partner, or practice owner |
| Pain owner | Practice manager or senior accountant — the person who feels it daily |
How we prioritise — four layers
Core — First outreach priority
10–30 staff · Multiple service lines · Role layering visible · Owner still in the middle. Personalised outreach, discovery conversations.
Secondary — Strong signals outside core
5–10 staff advisory-led or cloud-accounting firms, or 30–50 staff owner-led firms where workflow pressure is clearly visible. Include selectively.
Learning — Content and market observation
Broader accounting, bookkeeping, advisory, and payroll market. Used for content engagement, not personalised outreach.
Hard Exclusions — Not this campaign
Solo practitioners · Cheap-admin buyers · Firms with no visible workflow complexity · Enterprise procurement · Task-outsourcing mindset
06 / 12
How We Reach Them — Three Campaigns
We do not pitch. We lead them
to the conversation through three stages.
Most firms in this market have seen generic automation pitches. They ignore them. We enter differently — by first helping the buyer name what is actually wrong, before we ever mention what we sell.
Campaign 1
Problem Recognition
Help the buyer name the real problem. Not "we need automation" — but "our workflow depends too much on people remembering and rescuing." We earn recognition first.
Campaign 2
Cost and Urgency
Once they recognise the problem, we show what it is costing. Senior capacity consumed by checking. Clients lost to delay. Growth blocked by the same bottleneck. We make the cost real.
Campaign 3
Diagnostic Conversation
We invite the buyer who is now both aware and concerned into a structured workflow review — before we recommend anything. This is the commercial entry point.
What Campaign 1 does not do
Does not mention Memorres' services. Does not pitch. Does not ask for a meeting. It only earns recognition.
Why three campaigns, not one
A buyer who does not yet recognise the problem will not respond to a diagnostic offer. We build the conversation in stages — each one earns the right to the next.
Gated progression
Campaign 2 does not launch until Campaign 1 has produced clear learning. Campaign 3 does not launch until we know buyers are ready. Each gate is a deliberate decision.
07 / 12
The Commercial Endpoint
We are not selling software.
We are selling clarity before implementation.
The Workflow Clarity Session
A structured, paid diagnostic engagement. We review the firm's actual workflows — not their description of them. We identify where work depends on people, where automation is viable, and where it is not.
This is not a free discovery call. It is a service with a deliverable.
What the firm receives
→ A workflow dependency map
→ Automation readiness assessment
→ 1–3 quick-win workflows identified
→ 30/60/90-day implementation roadmap
→ Clear scope for what should be built next
What happens after the session
→
Implementation sprint
We build the automation, integrate the tools, and redesign the process — on a foundation we understand, not one we assumed.
→
Why this matters commercially
A client who has gone through the session is not comparing us to cheap build shops. They have seen our thinking. They trust our judgement. The commercial conversation is already different.
→
This is how Memorres earns the right to build
Every other provider builds first and hopes it works. We understand first. That difference is the product.
Session pricing and format will be confirmed during the research phase — before any campaign goes live.
08 / 12
Before We Launch — Evidence Foundation
We have the direction.
We need the evidence before we build the campaign.
The programme is strategically strong. But we have not yet validated it against the market. Before we write a single campaign asset, we need to confirm six things.
01
Confirm the right firm profile
The 5–50 staff range is a starting direction. Research will confirm whether the strongest fit is 10–30, 15–40, or something else entirely.
02
Validate that the pain is real and recognisable
We believe accounting firms feel workflow dependency, senior-person reliance, and manual leakage as real commercial problems. We need to confirm this — not assume it.
03
Capture how buyers actually describe the problem
We write the campaign in the buyer's language, not ours. LinkedIn posts, job ads, website language, and direct conversations — this is where the copy comes from.
04
Test whether our positioning creates trust
"Workflow clarity before automation" — does this land as a credible differentiation, or does it sound like a delay? We need to know before it goes live.
05
Assess whether a warm-introduction route exists
If we have trusted contacts who can introduce Memorres to accounting firm owners — this changes the campaign strategy. We need to assess this route clearly before launch.
06
Confirm delivery readiness before Campaign 3
The Workflow Clarity Session must be scoped, priced, and delivery-confirmed before we make any external offer. We do not offer what we are not ready to deliver.
This research phase is not a delay. It is the step that stops us from launching a campaign that sounds right internally but misses the market entirely.
09 / 12
Approval Boundary — What This Approval Covers
AWCP is approved as a structured 3-campaign programme.
Each campaign earns its execution through an approval gate.
In scope — what we are approving today
→ Audience validation — confirm best-fit firm profile
→ Pain-signal testing — is the problem real and commercial?
→ Lead-fit logic — how do we qualify the right firms?
→ Message learning — does workflow-first language create recognition?
→ Discovery conversation quality — are the right firms engaging?
→ Controlled evidence collection — what must be proven before scale
Out of scope — not approved until evidence confirms readiness
✕ Finalised email or LinkedIn outreach sequences
✕ Landing pages, lead magnets, or campaign assets
✕ Mass lead generation or large outreach lists
✕ Offer, pricing, or sales script finalisation
✕ Large-scale campaign execution or paid activity
AWCP is approved to continue as a structured 3-campaign programme. This approval allows the team to move into Evidence Foundation and campaign architecture planning. Each campaign must pass its own gate before execution — so the programme stays evidence-led rather than assumption-led.
10 / 12
Honest Assessment of Risks
What could go wrong.
And how we are managing it.
!
Accounting firms may hear "workflow first" as a delay
If our positioning lands as "extra consulting before you get what you want" — it will create resistance, not trust. This is the most important thing to test before launch. The research phase includes a specific test for this.
!
The warm-introduction route may not be confirmed yet
We believe a partner route into accounting firms may exist. But belief is not the same as a named contact with confirmed access. The research phase will clarify whether this route is real or aspirational.
!
The diagnostic session must be priced and scoped before it is offered
We cannot run Campaign 3 with a vague CTA. The session must be confirmed — what it costs, what it delivers, who delivers it, how long it takes — before we make any external promise. A credibility failure here undoes everything the campaign built.
!
Execution pressure may push us to skip the learning gates
Under commercial pressure, teams launch Campaign 2 before Campaign 1 has produced useful learning. This turns a smart programme into a standard campaign push. The gates are not optional — they are the mechanism that keeps the programme honest.
!
The audience size range is still provisional
5–50 staff is a direction, not a confirmed segment. If the research shows the strongest fit is actually 12–28 staff firms in specific service lines, the campaign targeting will need to narrow. This is expected and normal — not a programme failure.
!
The AI demand is real — but so is the noise around it
Every accounting technology vendor is now claiming AI. If we sound like another AI pitch, we will be filtered immediately. Our positioning must be specific enough to cut through — and the research phase will confirm whether it does.
11 / 12
The Decision — EPIC 0 Approval
One question. Six possible answers.
We need one from you today.
The question
Should Memorres approve AWCP as a structured 3-campaign programme — allowing the team to move into Evidence Foundation and campaign architecture planning — with the understanding that each campaign must pass its own approval gate before execution, so the programme stays evidence-led rather than assumption-led?
Proceed
AWCP is approved as a structured 3-campaign programme. The team moves into Evidence Foundation and campaign architecture planning. Each campaign still requires its own gate approval before production or launch.
Refine
Direction is valid but something specific needs adjustment — audience, positioning, or scope. Named gaps documented. Decision revisited at a defined date.
Delay
More evidence, internal readiness, or clarity is needed before this moves. Hold with a specific re-evaluation date.
Merge
This programme should be combined with a broader operational clarity or systemisation campaign rather than run independently.
Reject
Evidence does not support this as a focused campaign. Programme closed. Reasons documented. Different direction evaluated.
Treat as Learning
Insights are valuable but campaign execution is not justified yet. Findings feed into future strategy without committing to outreach.
No campaign assets should be treated as final until we have defined what evidence will prove this opportunity is worth pursuing. The programme must stay evidence-led — not activity-led.
Memorres · Accounting Workflow Clarity Programme · Intake Stage
Confidential · CEO Review
12 / 12
How to Approve — What We Need From You
Three approvals.
One decision. Here is how to give it.
Approval 1 — The Business Goal
The business goal of this programme is to generate qualified discovery conversations with Australian accounting, bookkeeping, and advisory firms that are likely experiencing workflow complexity — while validating whether workflow clarity before automation, AI, or software is a commercially meaningful problem for Memorres to pursue.
This is not a lead-generation-only campaign. It is not a market-validation-only exercise. It is both — and success at this stage means qualified conversations and validated market learning, not revenue alone.
We need you to confirm: is this the right business goal for the programme?
Approval 2 — The Intended Audience
The intended audience is owner-led Australian accounting, bookkeeping, and advisory firms — primarily in the 10–30 staff range — where visible maturity signals suggest workflow complexity, role layering, cloud tool usage, service complexity, and operational coordination pressure.
This audience is a first validation boundary, not a final ICP. The 5–50 staff outer boundary remains available. Firms outside the core range can still be included where strong workflow and maturity signals exist. Hard exclusions apply to solo practitioners, task-outsourcing buyers, and firms with no visible operational complexity.
We need you to confirm: is this the right audience to start with?
Approval 3 — The Controlled Boundary
AWCP is approved to continue as a structured 3-campaign programme. This intake decision allows the team to move into Evidence Foundation and campaign architecture planning. However, this approval does not automatically approve all three campaigns for production, launch, or scale at once.
Each campaign must pass its relevant approval gate before execution — so that the programme remains evidence-led rather than assumption-led. No campaign copy, outreach sequences, landing pages, offers, or sales scripts will be finalised until the relevant gate is passed.
We need you to confirm: do you agree with this gate-based boundary?
Once you have reviewed the three approvals above, go to Slide 11 and select your decision option: Proceed · Refine · Delay · Merge · Reject · Treat as Learning.
If you select Refine or Delay, please name the specific gap or concern so the team can act on it directly.
Your decision can be given by reply to this document, a 15-minute conversation, or by annotating and returning it — whichever is simplest.
What happens after your approval: The team moves into Evidence Foundation and campaign architecture planning. Each of the three campaigns will be brought back for its own gate approval before going into production or launch. Your next update will confirm readiness for Campaign 1.
Memorres · Accounting Workflow Clarity Programme · Intake Stage
Confidential · CEO Review