There is a category of financial reporting problem that gets blamed on the ERP. The reports are wrong, or incomplete, or require hours of manual work to produce, and the conclusion is that the system is not fit for purpose. Sometimes that conclusion is correct. More often, the system is perfectly capable of producing what is needed, but the chart of accounts it was given to work with is not.
The chart of accounts is the foundation of the entire financial reporting architecture. Every transaction that enters the system is coded to an account. Every report that comes out is an aggregation of those accounts. If the account structure is wrong, the reports will be wrong regardless of which system is running them.
This article explains what a poorly structured chart of accounts looks like in practice, how to diagnose whether yours is causing reporting problems, and how to restructure it without losing the historical data you need.
What a Bad Chart of Accounts Looks Like
The most common symptom of a poorly structured chart of accounts is the inability to produce the management reports the business needs directly from the ERP, combined with a heavy reliance on Excel to reformat and reconstruct the output.
Specific signs to look for:
Accounts that are too broad. A single account called “Personnel costs” that includes salaries, bonuses, social contributions, recruitment costs, and training all in one line tells you nothing useful about the cost structure. When you need to understand whether the personnel cost increase was driven by headcount, by bonus accruals, or by recruitment activity, you are either drilling into individual transactions or hoping someone has maintained a separate Excel tracker.
Accounts that mix different types of cost. An account called “Other operating costs” that contains everything from postage stamps to lease payments to management consulting fees is analytically useless. These costs belong in different structural positions in the management P&L and need to be separable.
No distinction between fixed and variable costs at the account level. If the account structure does not reflect the fixed/variable classification at some level, the contribution margin analysis and break-even calculation described in earlier articles in this series have to be built manually outside the system every time.
Accounts structured for tax compliance rather than management reporting. Charts of accounts set up by a Treuhänder or accounting firm whose primary purpose is preparing the statutory accounts and tax returns tend to be structured around the Kontenrahmen KMU in a way that satisfies OR requirements cleanly but does not produce useful management information. This is not a criticism of the statutory accounting work. It is a recognition that statutory accounting and management accounting have different structural needs.
Historical accumulation without design. In companies that have been running for several years without a deliberate chart of accounts review, the structure often reflects the history of decisions rather than a coherent design. An account was created for a specific project in 2019 and has been used for unrelated transactions ever since. Two accounts exist for what is effectively the same cost because they were created by different people in different periods. Old accounts that should have been closed years ago are still active.
The Swiss Kontenrahmen KMU
Most Swiss SMEs use the Swiss Kontenrahmen KMU (the standard Swiss chart of accounts for small and medium enterprises) as the basis for their account structure. It is a well-designed, OR-compliant framework that covers the full range of financial accounting needs.
The Kontenrahmen KMU is structured in ten account classes: assets, liabilities and equity, operating expenses, operating revenue, and so on. Within each class, there are standard account groups with standard numbering conventions that most Treuhänder and accounting software implementations follow.
For management reporting purposes, the Kontenrahmen KMU provides a good foundation but needs to be extended at the sub-account level to produce the granularity required for controlling. The standard structure provides account groups (for example, 5000-5999 for personnel costs) but leaves the sub-account structure to each company. How you populate that sub-account range determines whether your personnel cost reporting is useful or not.
A well-designed personnel cost section might have distinct accounts for: base salaries, variable compensation and bonuses, employer social contributions (AHV/IV/EO/ALV), occupational pension contributions (BVG), accident insurance (SUVA/UVG), sick pay insurance, recruitment and onboarding costs, training and professional development, and outsourced HR services. Each of these is a separately managed, separately explainable cost with different cost drivers and different management responses.
How to Diagnose Your Current Structure
Before restructuring, understand what you actually have. The diagnostic process has four steps.
Step 1: Pull the full chart of accounts with transaction volumes. From your ERP, produce a list of every active account with the number of transactions posted in the last 12 months. Accounts with very high transaction volumes are doing a lot of work and may need to be split. Accounts with zero or near-zero transactions may be redundant.
Step 2: Map accounts to management P&L lines. Take your standard management P&L structure (revenue, gross margin, EBITDA, net profit) and for each line, identify which accounts feed it. If a single account feeds two different P&L lines in different situations, that is a structural problem. If you cannot map a clean set of accounts to each P&L line without a manual reclassification, the chart of accounts does not match your management reporting needs.
Step 3: Identify the analytical dimensions you need but cannot get. What questions do you regularly try to answer from your ERP but cannot without going to Excel? Each unanswered question is a symptom of a missing account or an account that is too aggregated.
Step 4: List the accounts that are ambiguous or overlapping. Where do you find transactions that were coded inconsistently, partly because the account descriptions are unclear and different people make different judgments about where they belong?
The output of these four steps is a clear picture of what needs to change and why.
Restructuring Without Losing History
The fear that prevents many companies from restructuring their chart of accounts is that historical data will be lost or the comparisons in future management reports will be distorted. This concern is legitimate but manageable.
The approach that works best is a parallel structure: keep the existing account numbers active but introduce a new numbering layer or account group structure alongside them. All new transactions post to the new accounts. Old transactions remain on the old accounts. For management reporting, a mapping table translates both old and new accounts to the correct P&L line, maintaining comparability across periods.
This approach requires a one-time mapping effort but avoids the need to restate historical transactions. Most ERP systems including SAP and Abacus support this kind of account mapping within their standard reporting configuration.
The timing of the transition matters. The cleanest implementation is at the start of a new fiscal year, which avoids within-year comparisons across account structures. If the restructure is needed mid-year, the mapping table approach manages the transition without distorting the year-to-date figures.
The Maintenance Discipline
A chart of accounts that is restructured and then left to accumulate new accounts without governance will degrade back to its prior state within two to three years. The maintenance discipline is simple but requires enforcement.
New accounts should be created only with finance approval. The request should specify the account purpose, the account class and sub-group, and the management P&L line it feeds. Finance should review the account structure annually as part of the budget preparation process and close any accounts that are inactive or redundant.
The controller who owns this process is building the analytical infrastructure that everyone else in finance depends on. It is not glamorous work. But the management reports that a well-structured chart of accounts makes possible, consistently and without manual reconstruction, are the foundation of everything else this article series covers.
Need help getting better reporting from your ERP? Download professional Excel templates or book a free call.
Alessandro Ratzenberger is a fractional CFO and business controller based in Zurich, with 15 years of operational finance experience at Dufry Group and Bomi (UPS Group).
