1. Data Sources (Provided by Northwest Wealth Partners)

• For this Module
  • The Data Governance & Migration Strategy leverages a comprehensive set of operational, planning, compliance, and portfolio‑accounting data sources across Northwest Wealth Partners. Because the firm is fictional, these sources represent the types of data a real RIA would use to diagnose governance gaps and design a migration roadmap.
• CRM (Client & Household Data)
  • Client demographics
  • Household relationships
  • Service tiers
  • Meeting notes and documentation
  • Tasks, workflows, and planning status indicators
  • Referral sources (inconsistently used)
    • Used to evaluate completeness, naming conventions, workflow compliance, and documentation accuracy
• Orion (Portfolio Accounting & AUM Data)
  • AUM values
  • Account‑level metadata
  • Custodial feeds
  • Billing groups
  • Performance reporting
    • Used to assess reconciliation accuracy, metadata completeness, and cross‑system alignment
• eMoney (Financial Planning Data)
  • Planning inputs (income, expenses, assets, liabilities)
  • Plan outputs and recommendations
  • Annual review updates
  • Meeting prep materials
    • Used to evaluate planning completeness, template consistency, and planner workload strain
• Operational Spreadsheets (CSA, Advisors, Operations, Compliance, Marketing)
  • Onboarding trackers
  • NIGO logs
  • Transfer status trackers
  • Compliance documentation checklists
  • Marketing attribution data
  • Advisor planning trackers
  • Capacity calculations
    • Used to identify fragmentation, inconsistent fields, duplicate records, and manual touchpoints
• Workflow & Process Data
  • Onboarding throughput
  • Custodial rework volume
  • Documentation exception rates
  • Sync error logs
    • Used to map process gaps and quantify operational strain
• Organizational & Role Structure Data
  • Department responsibilities
  • Workflow ownership
  • Delegation patterns
  • Reporting lines
    • Used to assign stewardship roles and governance accountability

2. Data Cleaning & Preparation

• Standardization Across Systems
  • Normalized CRM, Orion, and eMoney fields to consistent formats (dates, currency, dropdown values)
  • Standardized household naming conventions and account metadata structures
  • Aligned planning inputs to a unified data gathering template
• Normalization of Operational Metrics
  • Consolidated onboarding, NIGO, transfer, and compliance logs into unified datasets
  • Standardized status labels across spreadsheets and CRM workflows
  • Removed inconsistent column names and free‑text fields
• Duplicate & Missing Value Resolution
  • Identified duplicate households, contacts, and accounts across CRM and Orion
  • Flagged missing service tiers, referral sources, planning inputs, and custodial metadata
  • Reconciled conflicting spreadsheet entries maintained by multiple departments
• Cross‑System Alignment Preparation
  • Mapped CRM households to Orion accounts and eMoney plans
  • Identified mismatches in AUM values, household relationships, and planning status fields
  • Created cross‑system comparison tables for validation rule design
• Derived Fields Created for Analysis
  • Data completeness indicators (CRM, Orion, eMoney)
  • AUM reconciliation variance
  • Planning input completeness score
  • Documentation compliance score
  • Workflow compliance rate
  • Cross‑system consistency index

3. Analytical Methods

• Data Quality Analysis
  • Calculated clients per advisor, clients per CSA, and planner workload using current headcount and household totals
  • CompareEvaluated missing values, duplicates, and inconsistent fields across all systems
    Assessed documentation timeliness and workflow adherence
    Measured cross‑system alignment between CRM, Orion, and eMoney
• Governance Gap Assessment
  • Evaluated reporting lines, leadership span of control, and workflow ownership
  • Identified strucIdentified ownership gaps, process gaps, and documentation gaps using role‑based workflow mapping
    Analyzed manual touchpoints by position to determine where governance controls were weakest
• System Integration Mapping
  • Analyzed responsibilities across advisors, CSAs, planners, operations specialists, and compliance reviewers
  • IdentMapped automated and manual data flows across CRM, Orion, eMoney, and spreadsheets
    Identified integration failure points (custodial feeds, planning sync, household mapping)
• Stewardship Modeling
  • Modeled three‑year staffing needs based on capacity thresholds, client growth projections, and operational workload trends
  • Identified required additions across advisors, CSAs, planners, operations, and compliancAssigned data owners and custodians based on workflow responsibility and operational impact
    Built stewardship tiers (ownership → custodianship → operations governance → leadership oversight)
• Validation Rule Design
  • Assessed workload intensity, capacity strain, and growth pressure across all roles
  • EvaluDeveloped automated checks for completeness, accuracy, and consistency
    Created exception routing logic tied to stewardship roles
    Designed daily, weekly, monthly, and quarterly validation cycles
• Migration Sequencing & Risk Analysis
  • Compared advisor, CSA, and planner compensation ranges to regional RIA market data
  • Mapped incentive sPrioritized systems based on downstream impact and data fragility
    Designed a six‑phase migration roadmap (audit → cleanse → restructure → align → consolidate → BI deployment)
    Identified risks (advisor resistance, spreadsheet dependency, integration errors) and mitigation strategies

4. Assumptions

• CRM is the primary system of record and must be stabilized before integration or BI deployment
• Advisor documentation habits materially affect data quality, planning accuracy, and compliance readiness
• CSA throughput is constrained by onboarding volume, custodial paperwork, and fragmented workflows
• Planner workload strain increases with inconsistent data gathering and outdated plan inputs
• Compliance reviewers maintain ~250–300 files/year before exception rates rise
• Spreadsheet dependency introduces significant error risk and must be eliminated through workflow redesign
• Governance enforcement, stewardship accountability, and validation automation will materially improve data quality
• A phased 12‑month roadmap is required to implement governance without disrupting client service
• As a fictional firm, NW Wealth Partners does not provide real data values; therefore, the methodology focuses on structure, logic, and governance design rather than numerical outputs

1. CRM (Client Data)

a. Primary Data Stored

• Client demographics

• Household relationships

• Service tiers

• Meeting notes

• Tasks & workflows

• Planning status indicators

• Referral sources (inconsistently used)

b. Key Issues

• Incomplete fields (service tier, referral source, household size)

• Inconsistent advisor documentation habits

• Manual entry leading to data quality risk

• Fragmented workflows across advisors and CSAs

2. Orion (Portfolio Accounting & Performance Reporting)

a. Primary Data Stored

• AUM values

• Account-level data

• Performance reporting

• Fee billing

• Custodial feeds

b. Key Issues

• Sync errors and manual reconciliation

• AUM discrepancies across advisor books

• Limited integration with CRM workflows

• Data inconsistencies during onboarding

3. eMoney (Financial Planning System)

a. Primary Data Stored

• Planning data (income, expenses, assets, liabilities)

• Plan outputs and recommendations

• Meeting prep materials

• Annual review updates

b. Key Issues

• Inconsistent data gathering inputs from advisors

• Planner backlog causing outdated plan data

• Manual updates leading to version control issues

• Limited alignment with CRM fields

4. Spreadsheets (Operational, Compliance, Advisor, CSA, Marketing)

a. Primary Data Stored

• Onboarding trackers

• NIGO logs

• Compliance documentation checklists

• Marketing attribution data

• Advisor-specific planning trackers

• CSA workflow logs

• Capacity calculations

b. Key Issues

• Siloed data across departments

• No version control

• High risk of errors and duplicates

• Not integrated with CRM or Orion

• Creates reporting inconsistencies and rework

1. CRM

a. Missing Values

• Missing service tier assignments

• Missing or incomplete referral source fields

• Missing household size and relationship mappings

• Incomplete meeting notes and planning status indicators

• These gaps reduce segmentation accuracy and weaken advisor‑level reporting

b. Duplicates

• Duplicate households created during onboarding when advisors or CSAs bypass workflows

• Duplicate contacts created when household relationships are unclear

• Reporting inflation and workflow confusion

c. Inconsistent Fields

• Referral_Source and Acquisition_Channel used inconsistently across advisors

• Service tier definitions vary by advisor

• Naming conventions differ across households and contacts

• These inconsistencies break segmentation logic and reduce dashboard reliability

2. Orion

a. Missing Values

• Missing account metadata during onboarding

• Occasional missing custodial fields due to sync errors

• These gaps create AUM reconciliation discrepancies

b. Duplicates

• Duplicate accounts when custodial feeds fail or are manually re‑entered

• These duplicates distort AUM totals and billing calculations

c. Inconsistent Fields

• AUM values differ from advisor book snapshots due to timing and manual adjustments

• Account naming conventions vary across custodians

• These inconsistencies require manual reconciliation

3. eMoney

a. Missing Values

• Missing planning inputs (income, expenses, liabilities) due to inconsistent advisor data gathering

• Outdated plan values when planners face backlog

• Missing values here directly affect planning accuracy

b. Duplicates

• Advisory-siloed entry avoids duplicates within eMoney

c. Inconsistent Fields

• Planning fields differ based on advisor input style

• Data gathering templates used inconsistently

• These inconsistencies reduce planning comparability across households

4. Spreadsheets

a. Missing Values

• Missing timestamps

• Missing workflow status fields

• Missing documentation completeness indicators

• These gaps make operational reporting unreliable and inconsistent across departments

b. Duplicates

• Duplicate rows across CSA onboarding trackers

• Duplicate planning logs maintained separately by advisors and planners

• These duplicates create conflicting operational metrics and complicate migration

c. Inconsistent Fields

• Column names differ across departments

• Status fields use inconsistent labels (e.g., “Done,” “Complete,” “Finished”)

• These inconsistencies make consolidation and migration more difficult

1. Ownership Gaps

a. CRM (Client & Household Data)

• No defined owner for service tier accuracy, referral source completeness, or household relationship mapping

• Advisors and CSAs enter data inconsistently, with no enforcement mechanism

• Operations Specialists act as CRM admins but lack authority to enforce standards

b. Orion (AUM & Account Data)

• AUM reconciliation responsibility is unclear between advisors and operations

• Custodial feed errors are handled ad hoc, with no formal owner for integration accuracy

c. eMoney (Planning Data)

• Planners own plan updates but rely on inconsistent advisor inputs

• No defined owner for ensuring planning data aligns with CRM fields

d. Spreadsheets (Operational & Compliance Data)

• Each department maintains its own trackers with no centralized oversight

• No owner responsible for version control, field consistency, or data consolidation

e. Impact

• Ownership gaps create data drift, inconsistent reporting, and unclear accountability for data quality

2. Process Gaps

a. CRM Workflows

• Advisors bypass workflows, creating duplicate households and missing fields

• No standardized process for updating service tiers or planning status

b. Onboarding & CSA Workflows

• Multiple spreadsheets track onboarding, NIGO, and custodial tasks with inconsistent fields

• No unified workflow across CSAs, leading to inconsistent cycle times and documentation accuracy

c. Planning Processes

• Data gathering varies by advisor, causing inconsistent planning inputs

• No standardized intake process for planners, contributing to backlog and outdated plan data

d. Compliance Processes

• Documentation review lacks integration with CRM workflows

• Exception handling is inconsistent and not logged uniformly

e. Impact

• Process gaps increase rework, reduce throughput, and undermine data reliability across systems

3. Documentation Gaps

a. CRM Field Definitions

• No documented standards for required fields, naming conventions, or update frequency

• Referral_Source and Acquisition_Channel fields are used inconsistently and not documented

b. Operational Workflows

• Onboarding, NIGO, and transfer processes lack formal SOPs

• CSA workflow documentation varies by individual, not department

c. Planning Documentation

• No standardized templates for data gathering or plan update notes

• Version control issues arise due to manual updates and inconsistent storage

d. Compliance Documentation

• Meeting note requirements are not documented clearly for advisors

• Audit exception criteria are not standardized across reviewers

e. Impact

• Documentation gaps prevent consistent execution, reduce training effectiveness, and create migration risk

1. Advisors

a. CRM

• Household creation

• Service tier assignment

• Meeting notes & follow‑up documentation

• Planning status updates

• Referral source entry

• Task creation & workflow updates

• Meeting prep data entry

• Plan update notes

• Follow‑up task creation

• Documentation cleanup

b. eMoney

• Occasional manual plan adjustments

• Uploading documents or meeting prep materials

• Minor plan data adjustments

• Uploading supporting documents

c. Orion

• Manual reconciliation notes when AUM discrepancies appear

• Account labeling corrections (rare but occurs during onboarding issues)

d. Spreadsheet

• Planning prep trackers

• Annual review prep notes

• Personal tracking sheets for client follow‑up

• Meeting prep checklists

• Follow‑up tracking logs

2. Client Service Associates (CSAs)

a. CRM

• Onboarding data entry

• Workflow status updates

• Account metadata fixes

• Documentation completeness checks

b. Orion

• Manual corrections to account metadata

• Notes during reconciliation of custodial feed issues

c. Spreadsheets

• Onboarding trackers

• NIGO logs

• Transfer status trackers

• Custodial paperwork logs

3. Planners

a. CRM

• Planning status updates

• Meeting prep notes

• Documentation accuracy checks

b. eMoney

• Full planning data entry (income, expenses, assets, liabilities)

• Plan updates

• Annual review prep inputs

c. Spreadsheets

• Data gathering templates

• Plan update logs

• Version control tracking for plan drafts

4. Operations Specialist

a. CRM

• Workflow configuration

• Field cleanup

• Data normalization

b. Orion

• AUM reconciliation

• Sync error resolution

• Manual adjustments to account metadata

c. Spreadsheets

• Consolidation of departmental spreadsheets

• Operational trackers

• Integration error logs

5. Compliance Reviewers

a. CRM

• Documentation checks

• Meeting note compliance tagging

• Missing documentation flags

b. Spreadsheets

• Audit exception logs

• Documentation review trackers

• Compliance checklists

6. Marketing

a. CRM

• Referral source cleanup

• Lead attribution updates

b. Spreadsheets

• Campaign tracking

• Lead funnel metrics

• Attribution logs

Section 1 – Completeness

• Gauges: Service Tier Completeness, Referral Source Completeness
• Bar Chart: Onboarding Field Completion
• Table: Missing Required Fields by System

Section 2 – Accuracy

• Line Chart: AUM Reconciliation Rate
• KPI Tiles: NIGO Rate, Transfer Rework Rate
• Table: Compliance Exceptions by Category

Section 3 – Consistency

• Bar Chart: Naming Convention Compliance
• KPI Tile: Workflow Compliance
• Heatmap: Cross‑System Alignment (CRM ↔ Orion ↔ eMoney)

1. Data Standards

a. CRM Required Fields – All client and household records must contain the following fields before onboarding is considered complete:

• Household Name

• Primary Contact

• Service Tier

• Referral Source

• Household Relationship Mapping

• Planning Status

• Advisor Assignment

• Custodian & Account Metadata

b. eMoney Required Fields

• Income, expenses, assets, liabilities

• Planning assumptions (inflation, return expectations)

• Annual review date

• Plan completeness indicator

c. Orion Required Fields

• Account type

• Custodian

• Billing group

• Household mapping

• AUM values (synced and reconciled)

d. Data Type Standards

• Dates: YYYY‑MM‑DD

• Currency: USD, no commas, two decimal places

• Percentages: stored as decimals (0.15 = 15%)

• Boolean fields: Yes/No only

• Dropdown fields: must use approved values

d. Update Frequency Standards

• CRM household fields: updated at onboarding + annual review

• Planning data: updated at every plan delivery or annual review

• AUM data: reconciled weekly

• Compliance documentation: updated within 48 hours of meeting

2. Naming Conventions

a. CRM Household Naming

• Format: LastName1–LastName2 Household

• Examples:

◦ Smith–Johnson Household

◦ Lee Household (single client)

b. Orion Account Naming

• Format: Custodian – Account Type – LastName

• Examples:

◦ Schwann – IRA – Patel

◦ Fitelidy – Joint – Ramirez

c. Compliance & Planning Document Naming

• Format: YYYYMMDD – Document Type – LastName

• Examples:

◦ 20240615 – Annual Review Notes – Chen

◦ 20240501 – Planning Update – Alvarez

d. CRM Workflow Naming

• Format: Process – Subprocess – Version

• Examples:

◦ Onboarding – Custodial Setup – v2.0

◦ Annual Review – Prep – v1.3

e. Status Labels Standardization (All Systems)

• Approved values only:

◦ Not Started

◦ In Progress

◦ Pending Client

◦ Pending Custodian

◦ Complete

• This eliminates inconsistent labels like “Done,” “Finished,” “Ready,” etc.

3. Validation Rules

a. CRM Validation Rules

• Service Tier Required: Cannot save a household record without a tier

• Referral Source Required: Must use approved dropdown values

• Duplicate Household Check: System must flag identical last names + address combinations

• Meeting Note Compliance: Notes must be entered within 48 hours or flagged

b. Orion Validation Rules

• AUM Reconciliation: CRM AUM must match Orion within ±0.5% or flagged

• Custodial Metadata Required: Accounts missing custodian or type cannot be billed

• Duplicate Account Detection: Flag accounts with identical account numbers

c. eMoney Validation Rules

• Plan Input Completeness: Plans missing income, expenses, assets, or liabilities cannot be marked “Ready”

• Annual Review Currency: Plans older than 12 months must be flagged

• Template Enforcement: Data gathering must use standardized templates

d. Spreadsheet Validation Rules (Transition Period Only)

• No Missing Timestamps: Rows without dates are flagged

• No Free‑Text Status Fields: Must use approved labels

• Duplicate Row Detection: Flag identical household + task combinations

Data Ownership

1. Advisors

a. Data

• Household relationships

• Service tier assignments

• Planning status indicators

• Meeting documentation quality

b. Data Assignment Purpose

• Advisors manage client relationships and planning delivery; their inputs drive segmentation, planning workflows, and compliance readiness

2. Client Service Associates (CSAs)

a. Data

• Onboarding data completeness

• Custodial paperwork accuracy

• Transfer and NIGO data

b. Data Assignment Purpose

• CSAs execute onboarding and custodial workflows and their data determines operational throughput and error rates

3. Planners

a. Data

• Planning data accuracy (income, expenses, assets, liabilities)

• Plan update completeness

• Annual review data currency

b. Data Assignment Purpose

• Planners maintain the planning system and their data drives plan quality and advisor meeting readiness

4. Operations

a. Data

• CRM workflow standards

• Field definitions and naming conventions

• Integration accuracy (CRM ↔ Orion ↔ eMoney)

b. Data Assignment Purpose

• Planners manage systems and workflows and they ensure governance rules are enforced across departments

5. Compliance Reviewers

a. Data

• Documentation completeness

• Meeting note compliance

• Audit exception criteria

b. Data Assignment Purpose

• Compliance reviewers ensure regulatory alignment and their data ownership protects the firm from audit risk

6. Marketing

a. Data

• Lead attribution

• Referral source standardization

b. Data Assignment Purpose

• Marketing manages acquisition channels and their data drives funnel reporting and growth strategy

Data Custody

1. Advisors

a. Data

• Meeting notes

• Planning status updates

• Referral source entry

• Household updates

b. Role

• Ensure timely and accurate CRM documentation

2. Client Service Associates (CSAs)

a. Data

• Onboarding fields

• Custodial metadata

• Workflow status updates

• NIGO logs

b. Role

• Maintain operational accuracy and reduce rework

3. Planners

a. Data

• Planning inputs

• Plan updates

• Data gathering templates

b. Role

• Ensure planning data is complete and standardized

4. Operations

a. Data

• CRM workflow standards

• Field definitions and naming conventions

• Integration accuracy (CRM ↔ Orion ↔ eMoney)

b. Data Assignment Purpose

• Planners manage systems and workflows and they ensure governance rules are enforced across departments

5. Compliance Reviewers

a. Data

• Documentation completeness

• Meeting note compliance

• Audit exception criteria

b. Data Assignment Purpose

• Compliance reviewers ensure regulatory alignment and their data ownership protects the firm from audit risk

6. Marketing

a. Data

• Lead attribution

• Referral source standardization

b. Data Assignment Purpose

• Marketing manages acquisition channels and their data drives funnel reporting and growth strategy

System Prioritization

1. CRM (Client & Household Data) – Priority 1

a. CRM is the foundation for:

• Household relationships

• Service tiers

• Planning status

• Meeting documentation

• Workflows

• Referral attribution

b. Reason for Priority

• CRM inconsistencies cascade into planning, onboarding, compliance, and reporting

• Fixing CRM first stabilizes the entire data ecosystem

2. Orion (AUM & Account Data) – Priority 2

a. Orion drives:

• AUM reporting

• Billing

• Performance

• Custodial feeds

b. Reason for Priority

• AUM discrepancies and sync errors undermine revenue accuracy and executive reporting

3. eMoney (Planning Data) – Priority 3

a. eMoney Contains:

• Planning inputs

• Plan outputs

• Annual review data

b. Reason for Priority

• Planning data is inconsistent due to advisor variability and

planner backlog

• Standardization is required before integration

4. Spreadsheets (Operational, Compliance, Marketing) – Priority 4

a. Spreadsheets store:

• Onboarding trackers

• NIGO logs

• Compliance checklists

• Marketing attribution

• Capacity calculations

b. Reason for Priority

• Spreadsheets introduce the highest error risk and must be consolidated or eliminated

Migration Phases

Phase 1

a. Data Audit & Mapping

• Inventory all fields across CRM, Orion, eMoney, spreadsheets

• Map required fields to governance standards

• Identify duplicates, missing values, inconsistent fields

• Document manual touchpoints by role

b. Outcome

• A complete understanding of the current data landscape

Phase 2

a. Cleansing & Normalization

• Standardize service tiers, referral sources, naming conventions

• Clean household relationships

• Normalize account metadata

• Remove duplicates across systems

• Correct missing fields

b. Outcome

• A clean, governed dataset ready for migration

Phase 3

a. CRM Restructuring

• Implement required fields

• Enforce naming conventions

• Rebuild workflows

• Apply validation rules

• Assign stewardship responsibilities

b. Outcome

• CRM becomes the authoritative source of truth

Phase 4

a. System Integration Alignment

• Reconcile CRM ↔ Orion household mappings

• Align CRM ↔ eMoney planning fields

• Fix custodial feed issues

• Implement cross‑system validation rules

b. Outcome

• Systems begin syncing cleanly and consistently

Phase 5

a. Spreadsheet Consolidation

• Replace departmental spreadsheets with CRM workflows

• Move operational trackers into CRM or Orion

• Centralize compliance logs

• Standardize marketing attribution

b. Outcome

• Eliminates manual errors and improves reporting reliability

Phase 6

a. BI Model & Dashboard Deployment

• Build unified data model

• Deploy Data Quality Dashboard

• Implement executive, advisor, operations, and compliance dashboards

• Establish monthly validation cycles

b. Outcome

• Leadership receives accurate, governed, audit ready reporting

Migration Risks & Mitigation

Risk 1

a. Advisor Resistance to Standardization

• Advisors may resist workflow changes or documentation requirements

b. Mitigation

• Training

• Clear expectations

• Demonstrate time savings

• Leadership enforcement

Risk 2

a. Incomplete CRM Adoption

• If advisors or CSAs bypass CRM workflows, data quality will decay again

b. Mitigation

• Required fields

• Validation rules

• Stewardship accountability

• Monthly data quality scorecards

Risk 3

a. Integration Errors (CRM ↔ Orion ↔ eMoney)

• Sync issues can cause AUM discrepancies and planning misalignment

b. Mitigation

• Weekly reconciliation

• Integration error logs

• Operations ownership

Risk 4

a. Spreadsheet Dependency

• Departments may continue using spreadsheets out of habit

b. Mitigation

• Replace spreadsheets with CRM workflows

• Enforce version control

• Remove redundant trackers

Risk 5

a. Compliance Gaps During Migration

• Documentation may fall behind during system changes

b. Mitigation

• Compliance reviewer oversight

• Required meeting note fields

• Automated documentation checks

System Validations

1. CRM Automated Checks

a. Required Field Enforcement

• Household cannot be saved without: service tier, referral source, advisor assignment, relationship mapping

b. Duplicate Detection

• Flag identical last name + address combinations

c. Meeting Note Timeliness

• Flag meetings without notes after 48 hours

d. Workflow Compliance

• Flag skipped steps or incomplete onboarding workflows

2. Orion Automated Checks

a. AUM Reconciliation

• Compare CRM AUM vs Orion AUM, flag discrepancies >0.5%

b. Custodial Feed Integrity

• Flag missing account numbers, missing custodians, or failed feed imports

c. Duplicate Account Detection

• Flag identical account numbers across households

3. eMoney Automated Checks

a. Plan Input Completeness

• Flag plans missing income, expenses, assets, or liabilities

b. Annual Review Currency

• Flag plans older than 12 months

c. Template Enforcement

• Flag plans not using standardized data gathering templates

4. Spreadsheet Transition Checks (Used only during migration period)

a. Timestamp Enforcement

• Flag rows missing dates

b. Status Label Standardization

• Flag non‑approved status labels

c. Duplicate Row Detection

• Flag identical household + task combinations

Exception Reporting

Exception reporting surfaces issues detected by automated checks and routes them to the correct data steward for remediation.

1. Exception Categories

a. Completeness Exceptions

• Missing service tier

• Missing referral source

• Missing planning inputs

• Missing custodial metadata

b. Accuracy Exceptions

• AUM mismatches

• NIGO errors

• Transfer rework

• Compliance documentation gaps

c. Consistency Exceptions

• Naming convention violations

• Workflow sequence errors

• Cross‑system field mismatches

2. Exception Routing (Who Fixes What)

a. Advisors

• Missing meeting notes

• Incorrect referral sources

• Incorrect planning status fields

b. Client Service Associates

• Missing onboarding fields

• Custodial metadata errors

• NIGO exceptions

c. Planners

• Missing planning inputs

• Outdated plan values

• Incorrect data gathering templates

d. Operations Specialists

• AUM reconciliation errors

• Integration mismatches

• Workflow configuration issues

e. Compliance Reviewers

• Documentation gaps

• Meeting note compliance failures

• Audit exceptions

3. Validation Cycle

a. Daily

• CRM required fields

• Meeting note timeliness

• Custodial feed integrity

• Duplicate detection

b. Weekly

• AUM reconciliation

• Workflow compliance

• Planning input completeness

c. Monthly

• Cross‑system alignment (CRM ↔ Orion ↔ eMoney)

• Compliance documentation audit

• Data quality dashboard refresh

d. Quarterly

• Full governance review

• Stewardship accountability review

• Audit readiness assessment

1. Quarter 1 — Foundation & Standards (Months 1–3)

a. Objectives

• Establish governance rules

• Define ownership

• Stabilize CRM

b. Key Activities

• Finalize data standards (required fields, update frequency, data types)

• Publish naming conventions across CRM, Orion, eMoney, and documentation

• Implement CRM required fields and validation rules

• Assign Data Owners and Data Custodians

• Launch monthly Data Quality Scorecard

• Begin cleansing of service tiers, referral sources, household relationships

c. Primary Owners

• Operations Specialists (CRM configuration, standards enforcement)

• Advisor Services Leadership (documentation discipline)

• Compliance (meeting note standards)

2. Quarter 2 — Cleansing & Alignment (Months 4–6)

a. Objectives

• Normalize data across systems

• Eliminate major inconsistencies

b. Key Activities

• Clean and normalize CRM household records

• Reconcile CRM ↔ Orion household mappings

• Standardize planning inputs and templates in eMoney

• Remove duplicates across CRM, Orion, and spreadsheets

• Implement automated validation checks (completeness, accuracy, consistency)

• Begin spreadsheet consolidation (onboarding, NIGO, compliance logs)

c. Primary Owners

• Operations Specialists (cross‑system reconciliation)

• CSAs (onboarding data cleanup)

• Planners (planning input standardization)

3. Quarter 3 — Integration & Workflow Redesign (Months 7–9)

a. Objectives

• Strengthen system integrations

• Replace spreadsheet workflows

b. Key Activities

• Align CRM ↔ eMoney planning fields

• Resolve custodial feed issues in Orion

• Rebuild onboarding workflows in CRM

• Replace CSA spreadsheets with CRM workflows

• Implement workflow compliance validation

• Launch cross‑system consistency checks (CRM ↔ Orion ↔ eMoney)

c. Primary Owners

• Operations Specialists (workflow rebuild, integration fixes)

• CSAs (workflow adoption)

• Compliance (documentation integration)

4. Quarter 4 — BI Deployment & Governance Maturity (Months 10–12)

a. Objectives

• Deploy dashboards

• Finalize governance processes

• Finalize institutionalize stewardship

b. Key Activities

• Deploy Data Quality Dashboard

• Deploy Advisor, Operations, and Compliance dashboards

• Finalize Data Stewardship Model

• Launch quarterly governance review cycle

• Implement annual audit readiness process

• Document governance SOPs for all departments

• Transition governance responsibilities into BAU (business‑as‑usual)

c. Primary Owners

• Operations Specialists (dashboard data model, governance enforcement)

• Leadership — COO (governance oversight)

• Compliance (audit readiness)