The Most Dangerous Phrase in Strata Accounting: “It’s Always Been Done This Way”

Why This Phrase Is So Risky

The danger is not that the process is old. The danger is that the process is no longer examined.

Strata environments change constantly. Systems evolve. Legislation updates. Audit expectations tighten. Staff change. What was once acceptable can slowly become incorrect, non-compliant, or misleading without anyone noticing a clear breaking point.

When a process is repeated without review, three things tend to happen:

• Assumptions replace evidence
• Workarounds replace controls
• The numbers balance, but accuracy clips

The ledger may reconcile. Reports may generate. Nothing appears broken. But correctness quietly drifts.

Familiarity Creates Blind Spots

Long standing processes often survive because they are easy to execute, not because they are correct. When something feels familiar, it stops feeling questionable.

What this looks like in practice:

• Processes kept alive simply because “that’s how it was set up years ago”
• Opening balances carried forward from a previous agent, legacy issues or system transition without fully understanding or resolving what those balance actually represent
• Suspense balances carried forward and accumulating without being properly resolved or reconciled
• Staff trained to follow steps without understanding the purpose, intent or risk behind the process

Individually, these practices rarely look alarming in isolation. The risk comes from accumulation. Over time, small assumptions stack on top of each other until no one can clearly explain why something exists, only that it always has.

Legacy Systems, Modern Risk

Many of these blind spots are reinforced by system transitions.

A process that made sense under a previous agency, platform or regulatory environment is often carried forward without being re-validated. If the system still allows the entry, so the assumption is that it must still be acceptable.

This creates a false sense of protection.

Systems enforce rules, but they do not enforce judgement. They cannot tell you whether a historical balance was correct to begin with, or whether a long standing journal still reflects reality. When trust shifts from evidence to system behavior, risk grows quietly.

Why Good People Keep Doing It

This is not about capability. In fact, experienced and conscientious staff are often the most exposed to this risk.
Many long-standing practices continue simply because they have become habit, feel familiar, or were taught without explaining the underlying purpose behind them. When people are trained to follow steps rather than understanding why those steps exist, they naturally stop questioning them.

Common reasons include:

• High workload leaves little room to re-question established processes
• Senior staff inherit responsibility without inheriting context
• Teams avoid revisiting areas that previously caused disruption
• There is an unspoken fear of uncovering something that cannot be easily fixed
• Processes are repeated because "This is how we do it", not because they are still correct

Over time, familiarity becomes a coping mechanism. The goal shifts from accuracy to continuity.

The Cost of Not Questioning

The real cost of “it’s always been done this way” is not immediate error. It is delayed discovery.

When an issue is finally identified, it is often:

• Historical
• Cross period
• Poorly documented
• Hard to unwind without wider impact

By that point, fixing the issue is more complex, more visible, and more stressful than if it had been questioned earlier.

In many cases, the organization then has to explain not only the issue, but why it was not identified sooner.

What Questioning Actually Looks Like

Questioning a process does not mean dismantling it. It means re-establishing evidence.

Practical, low risk ways to do this include:

• Asking what purpose the process was originally designed to serve
• Confirming whether that purpose still exists
• Checking whether the system behavior has changed since the process was created
• Verifying that documentation still reflects what is actually happening

This does not require immediate correction. It requires clarity first.

When “Always” Is Actually Acceptable

Not every long- standing process is wrong. Many are sound, well-tested, and entirely appropriate for the time and context in which they were created.

The difference is documentation and understanding.

A defensible process can be explained clearly. It has a reason, a trigger, and a predictable outcome. It is supported by evidence, not habit.

If a process can be explained without relying on the phrase “we always do it this way”, it is usually on much safer ground.

A Safer Replacement Phrase

Instead of asking “have we always done it this way,” shift to three clearer questions:

“Does this still accurately reflect what is happening now?”

"Why are we doing it this way?"

"Is there a better way?"

The first restores accuracy. The second uncovers purpose and exposes assumptions. The third invites improvement once the facts are understood.

This simple shift moves the focus from habit to clarity, and from continuity to correctness.

Final Thought

In any business, things rarely go wrong all at once. They drift off course one unchecked process at a time.

The most dangerous risks are rarely the ones people argue about. They are the ones no one thinks to question.

If a process exists only because it always has, it is worth stopping and checking - not to assign blame, but to restore confidence that what looks right is actually correct. The goal is simple: know the underlying reason. Ask why.

Sometimes the most responsible action is not to fix, but to verify.