Outsourced Finance Oversight and Control Allocation Adviser

The mandate

The finance governance committee keeps returning to the same question: which controls must remain with the accountable finance owner when preparation and processing are outsourced? Current service measures describe timeliness more clearly than the quality of judgements or unresolved exceptions. The adviser will challenge control allocation and oversight evidence, not renegotiate outsourcing contracts or supervise the provider's staff.

Three days each month are reserved for reviewing a selected control chain, discussing it with retained and service owners, and attending the governance meeting. Committee attendance is included. Ad-hoc questions receive acknowledgement within two working days and a considered response within four where the supporting records are available; urgent execution remains the internal owner's responsibility.

Control-allocation advice begins on 19 October 2026 and expires after six months. The finance governance chair may renew it where the retained-control agenda still needs independent challenge and the first term has exposed actionable accountability gaps. No line authority or executive responsibility passes to the adviser; retained finance signs its judgements and the service owner retains contractual performance management.

The sponsor supplies control descriptions, anonymised exception examples, service reports and the retained responsibility register. Advice should distinguish a task that can be delegated from accountability that cannot be outsourced. A provider assurance report is useful evidence, but its coverage, period and exceptions must be understood before it is treated as proof that the retained organisation has discharged its own controls.

Concurrent work is permitted where confidential information stays separated. Advisory relationships with the incumbent provider, a bidding replacement or an assurance firm reviewing the same controls create a conflict and must be disclosed. Procurement, regulatory representation and statutory audit are excluded. Recommendations should be usable by accountable finance owners without disguising an advice retainer as an additional line-management function.

What you will own

• Test retained and outsourced responsibility boundaries against real close exceptions, pressing owners to identify who possesses both the evidence and authority to resolve each issue.
• Challenge reliance on service assurance by comparing report coverage with the specific finance control, documenting gaps that remain the retained owner's responsibility.
• Shape an oversight pack that combines ageing, judgement quality and unresolved decisions, avoiding the assumption that a met deadline proves a sound balance.
• Question control handoffs where reviewers lack source access, advising what evidence should accompany the submission before an approval is meaningful.
• Examine escalation routes for disputed service outcomes, pressing the committee to separate contractual remedies from immediate finance-risk containment decisions that cannot wait for contractual renegotiation.
• Review proposed responsibility changes for segregation and practical capacity, identifying where a nominal retained control has no trained owner able to perform it.
• Record advice and dissent in a control-allocation note that leaves contractual instructions, accounting approvals and provider management with their authorised owners.

Candidate qualifications

• Show controller or finance-governance experience involving outsourced processing, with a concrete example of retained accountability that could not be delegated. Explain the underlying balance or judgement, the provider's role and the oversight evidence required before the internal owner could responsibly approve the result.
• Demonstrate ability to interpret service assurance and control reports without treating them as universal coverage. Candidates should describe a report limitation or exception that mattered to finance, the supplementary evidence obtained and the recommendation given to the accountable decision maker.
• Provide an example of improving responsibility allocation through observed exceptions rather than a theoretical operating-model chart. Explain how access, skill and authority affected the handoff and how the resulting design was tested under a real reporting deadline.
• Evidence advisory independence, including conflict disclosure where provider relationships existed. The assignment requires three sustainable days monthly and precise specialist judgement, not assumed board membership. Candidates must distinguish advice from management instructions, preserve confidential records across concurrent work and resist accepting approval authority outside the contracted role. Explain when a committee rejected your control recommendation and how the remaining exposure was documented.

Application

Applications for this mandate are received in one way only: through the India Board Terminal's application process. It is automated end to end. Your Executive Passport travels to the mandate holder in its confidential form, your answers to the three questions below are read before anything else in your file, and every stage that follows is recorded on your applications page.

There is no address to write to and no intermediary to call. The mandate holder reads what the Terminal delivers and nothing else, which is what keeps the process the same for every applicant and keeps your name out of it until you release it. Applications close on 9 October 2026. Mandate reference PCT-ADV-2026-IND-04.