Employee roles / permissions need a rework, particularly for income reconciliation
Currently, there are just three roles: Member, Admin, Owner.
Admin roles have far too much power (almost on par with owner), whilst member has far too little.
We are looking to outsource work with paraplanners and admins externally but are unable to do so because the employee roles are far too restrictive or too powerful. Hence, this is holding us back and restricting our ability to scale the business.
More specifically, income reconciliation is a massive time sink for us and it cannot be expected that the firm owners have to do these themselves or risk giving away far too much power and access to someone else (particularly external hires). Hence, there needs to be a feasible solution here.
Log in to comment and vote
Comments1
Simon Noakes
Jul 24, 2025
I agree there needs to be more granular roles in place, one specifically for Billing that provides access to Income Reconciliation, Income reports (Aged Debt, Income Rec, Adviser income, etc.) and access to client records in groups they are not a part of. They should should not have access to any other site settings.
A solution that may benefit companies of various sizes may be to have Income Rec as an additional function rather than a role in itself. This could be enabled for Members or Admins needing to perform this function whilst inheriting permissions those roles provide. For example if a user with Member role Income Rec function enabled they would only be able to administer and report on clients who were members of groups they had access to.