Efficient society management requires robust financial controls and systems that promote transparency and accuracy. Two widely adopted approaches in housing society management are the Double Verification Ledger System and the Maker-Checker Model. While both models aim to enhance accountability, they differ in the number of individuals involved in the verification process. In this article, we will compare and contrast these two approaches to understand their respective benefits and applications.
The Maker-Checker Model
In the Maker-Checker Model, only two individuals are involved in the verification process – the maker and the checker. The maker initiates the transaction or record entry, while the checker is responsible for reviewing and approving the maker’s work. This system ensures a basic level of oversight and reduces the risk of errors or omissions made by a single individual.
Advantages of the Maker-Checker Model:
- Simplified workflow with two individuals involved.
- Quick decision-making due to a linear verification process.
- Reduced the likelihood of fraudulent activities or unauthorized transactions.
Limitations of the Maker-Checker Model:
- Limited expertise: Only two sets of eyes review the transactions, which may not be sufficient for complex financial matters.
- Single point of failure: If the checker overlooks an error made by the maker, it could lead to potential inaccuracies.
The Double Verification Ledger System
In contrast, the Double Verification Ledger System involves two checkers after the maker has reported the transaction. The department head verifies the transaction, as in the Maker-Checker Model, but an additional checker, such as the society treasurer, also reviews the transaction independently. This dual-check process adds an extra layer of scrutiny, enhancing accuracy and reducing the chances of oversight.
Advantages of the Double Verification Ledger System:
- Comprehensive scrutiny: The involvement of two checkers ensures thorough verification and financial accuracy.
- Expertise-driven: Multiple stakeholders, such as the department head and treasurer, bring diverse expertise to the verification process.
- Offloading work: By involving department heads, the workload on the treasurer is reduced, allowing them to focus on strategic financial planning.
Limitations of the Double Verification Ledger System:
Slightly longer process: The involvement of two checkers may add some time to the verification process compared to the Maker-Checker Model.
This is being addressed by OlaGate with their real-time double verification/approval feature. Now housing society committee can leverage the skill sets & interests of their resident and get more helping hands without actually getting into the process of board expansion and approval.
Conclusion
Both the Double Verification Ledger System and the Maker-Checker Model play crucial roles in strengthening society management. The Maker-Checker Model offers a straightforward and efficient approach with two sets of eyes on each transaction. On the other hand, the Double Verification Ledger System, by involving two checkers after the maker, provides a more robust verification process with greater expertise and accountability.
The choice between the two models depends on the complexity of the housing society’s financial operations and the desired level of scrutiny. For societies seeking comprehensive financial accuracy and greater involvement of key stakeholders, the Double Verification Ledger System emerges as a preferred option. Ultimately, the implementation of either approach represents a commitment to fostering transparency, accountability, and efficient management within the housing society.
