AC570 Unit 10 Analytics Management Presentation Example

Three Approvals Before the First Chart: A Unit 10 Management Presentation on Rent Credit Analytics

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

AC570: Data Analytics for Accountants

Unit 10 Management Presentation

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

Stowfield Storage, its leaders and every figure are composite; the books, textbook and guide cited are real; slides are given as text with speaker notes.

Slide 1: Three Decisions Today

Slide: Approve a field review at Facility 22, a district sign-off rule for credits above one month's rent, and recovery of 19 duplicate refunds.

Notes: I am going to ask for three things and then show why. Each has an owner and a date on this slide: the field review by the district manager and internal audit, starting February 23; the approval rule by the vice president of operations, decided today; and recovery letters by accounts payable this week. Everything after this slide supports one of these three requests. If we only have five minutes, this slide is the meeting.

Slide 2: The Question and the Data

Slide: Should site managers credit rent without district approval, and does any site need a closer look first?

Notes: This is the question we agreed in January. The answer rests on every credit at all 31 facilities for fiscal 2025, 15,594 credits worth $1.55 million, tied to the general ledger's concessions account within one explained entry. We did not sample; every transaction was tested. One facility-week, Facility 27 in early March, is missing because of a terminal outage and was left out.

Slide 3: Facility 22 Credits $36,730 More Than Its Activity Explains

Slide: A dot plot of all 31 facilities against their expected range, with Facility 22 well above it.

Notes: We built an expectation for each facility from its move-ins and delinquent accounts. Most facilities sit inside their range. Facility 22 sits far above it, and its June goodwill credits doubled with no documented cause. Facility 9 has the highest ratio, but it is a new site filling up on promotions, which explains it.

Slide 4: Four Independent Tests Point to Facility 22

Slide: Missing receipts, late manual credits, duplicate refunds and credits clustered just under $100 all concentrate at Facility 22.

Notes: Twenty-one of the 28 unexplained missing receipt numbers are there. Twenty-two of the 36 unexplained after-hours staff credits are there. Credits between $90 and $99, just below the second-login threshold, are over-represented there. Any one of these could have an innocent explanation. Four at one site is why we are asking for a field review, not an accusation (Nigrini, 2012).

Slide 5: 312 Large Credits Were Never Approved

Slide: Credits above one month's rent, $61,840 in all, went through with only the site manager's login.

Notes: Most are probably goodwill for long-standing tenants. But nothing in the system requires a second person to look at a credit that large, and the rule we are proposing would.

Slide 6: 19 Refunds Were Paid Twice

Slide: $2,087.13 paid twice to the same tenants; recovery letters are ready.

Notes: Thirty-nine other pairs were legitimate reissues. These 19 cleared twice.

Slide 7: What Looks Like a Problem but Is Not

Slide: 1,229 after-hours credits are the website applying the move-in promotion at night.

Notes: By count, these top the exception list. By cost, they are zero. We checked them so you would not have to wonder (Richardson et al., 2023).

Slide 8: The Proposed Rule

Slide: Credits above one month's rent require district approval in the system before they post.

Notes: The cost is a few minutes of district manager time for about 26 credits a month. It closes the gap on Slide 5 and adds a second look to the pattern on Slide 4.

Slide 9: What We Will Watch

Slide: Monthly: credits against expectation by facility, approvals, and the four tests.

Notes: The tests can run every month from the same prepared file.

Slide 10: Conditions That Would Change the Recommendation

Slide: A documented cause for Facility 22's June credits, or a finding that large credits mostly fail approval, would change our recommendations.

Notes: We are confident about the pattern, less certain about its cause.

Each chart slide carries a sentence title that states its finding, because the leaders in the room should be able to read only the titles and still know what was found and what is being asked of them.

Anticipated Questions

Three questions are likely, and the notes prepare answers. First, will the approval rule slow down service at the counter? Credits above one month's rent are rare, about 26 a month across the chain, and district managers can approve on their phones within minutes. Second, does the analysis accuse the Facility 22 manager? No. It shows that the facility's records differ from the rest in four ways, and the field review exists to find out why; there may be an explanation the data cannot see, such as a local competitor's promotion. Third, why not run this every year? The prepared file and the tests can run every month at little cost, which is the recommendation on Slide 9.

How the Deck Was Tested

The deck was rehearsed once with the controller, who asked that Slide 7 come earlier so the portal credits would not distract from Facility 22. It was kept in place after discussion, because showing the harmless finding just before the proposed rule helps the room see that the rule targets something specific. Every number on the slides was traced back to the exception register and the regression output before the meeting.

Timing

The presentation runs fifteen minutes with ten minutes for questions. Slides one and two take three minutes, the four finding slides six, and the rule, monitoring and closing slides the rest. If time is cut, the presenter stops after Slide 4 and returns to Slide 1 for decisions.

Appendix Slides

Appendix A lists every exception with record identifiers. Appendix B shows the regression and its limits: the model explains about 31 percent of month-to-month variation, so it flags sites for attention but cannot prove anything about them.

Design Notes

Each chart was chosen for the comparison its slide makes: a sorted dot plot for facilities against expectation, a simple bar for the four tests, and no pie charts. Titles are full sentences. Numbers are rounded on slides and exact in notes. This follows the principle that a chart should answer the reader's question with the fewest marks needed (Few, 2012), and audit guidance that results of data analytics be communicated with their limitations stated (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, 2017).

References

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (2017). Guide to audit data analytics. AICPA.

Few, S. (2012). Show me the numbers: Designing tables and graphs to enlighten (2nd ed.). Analytics Press.

Nigrini, M. J. (2012). Benford's law: Applications for forensic accounting, auditing, and fraud detection. Wiley.

Richardson, V. J., Teeter, R. A., & Terrell, K. L. (2023). Data analytics for accounting (3rd ed.). McGraw Hill.