How to Open New Doors by Closing Your Office: Firms That Go Virtual the Right Way Can Enjoy Real Savings and Benefits
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] Virtually no one who has leased office space has enjoyed writing that rent check every month. It might have been satisfying at first, when the firm or company was young and having an office was a sign of progress, but watching money go into a landlord's pocket inevitably gets old. Still, the reality was that for most multi-employee businesses, the brick-and-mortar office was foundational to the organization's existence. Physical presence announced reliability and permanence to current and prospective clients. A physical office also was deemed necessary for employee collaboration and client meetings. Consequently, the monthly lease or loan payment was considered an unavoidable part of doing business. That mindset is beginning to change. Cloud-computing and paperless technologies are rewriting the rules for many businesses, and not just in the areas of client service and product delivery. The same forces that are opening new markets and geographies for accounting firms (see the JofA article From 'Write-Up' to Right Profitable, April 2013, page 24) are making it increasingly possible for practices to close their brick-and-mortar offices and go 100% virtual, with all processes based in the cloud and all employees based out of their homes. In the public accounting space, many new practices start completely virtual, and many sole practitioners have operated out of their homes for years. Erik Asgeirsson, president and CEO of AICPA technology subsidiary CPA2Biz, estimates that 5% to 10% of all accounting firms are operating without a brick-and-mortar office, and he expects those percentages to continue to rise. Business Management Resource Group (BMRG) and Blumer & Associates are a pair of firms that closed brick-and-mortar offices last year and moved to fully virtual setups. The firms have encountered challenges with shuttering their physical office operations and building camaraderie among employees working remotely, but they also have enjoyed substantial financial, staffing, and operational benefits. Is going virtual a realistic option for your firm or business? What is required to make such a leap? How long does the process take? What are the benefits and drawbacks? This article addresses those questions and more, drawing upon the experience of CPAs already operating in their own virtual realities. A TALE OF THREE FIRMS Carolyn Sechler, CPA, is a pioneer in virtual offices. She formed her firm, Arizona-based Carolyn Sechler CPA PC (a B Corporation), as a two-employee operation when she de-merged from another firm. More than 17 years later, she heads a 20-person virtual operation with team members in three states and Canada. The firm works exclusively with nonprofits, providing tax and other services. [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] We did more than 400 Form 990s last year, said Sechler, who is also a JofA editorial adviser. Most of my clients, and some of the people I work with, I've never met. For Jennifer Katrulya, CPA/CITE CGMA, and Jason Blumer, CPA/CITR the decision to take their firms completely virtual was a natural extension of their business plans. Katrulya, founder and CEO of Connecticut-based BMRG, and Blumer, owner and chief innovation officer of Blumer & Associates in Greenville, S.C., had converted their firms to cloud-based models that allowed them to pursue niche offerings with clients far beyond their home areas and even internationally. Katrulya grew her business by providing outsourced controllership and other accounting services to clients referred by venture capital firms. Blumer focused his firm on serving exclusively creative clients, including advertising agencies. During the evolutionary process, both firms expanded their staffs and in a quest for talent hired some employees in locations far from their brick-and-mortar offices. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it