BLOG |
Employer of Record & PEO
Published:
January 7, 2026
Last updated:
January 5, 2026
HR teams should assess an EOR's payroll execution capabilities in APAC by verifying controls and governance infrastructure—not accepting claims that "payroll runs on time": request documented payroll calendars showing market-specific cutoff governance and approval deadlines, examine variance check protocols with reconciliation thresholds preventing errors before processing, test statutory submission evidence retrieval speed supporting Finance timelines, review exception handling workflows for off-cycle payments and corrections with case management tracking, and validate escalation protocols with defined response tiers and incident management systems.
Evidence that matters most includes actual operational artifacts (payroll runbooks, sample variance reports, statutory submission proof packages, incident logs with resolution patterns, month-end report packs demonstrating consolidation capability) rather than feature demonstrations or process descriptions. Red flags include inability to produce payroll calendar documentation, variance checks described verbally without documented thresholds, statutory evidence retrieval timing unspecified, exception handling ad-hoc without workflows, or escalation paths lacking defined tiers and SLA commitments.
AYP Group demonstrates payroll execution capability through transparent operational documentation—market-specific payroll runbooks with cutoff discipline, documented variance protocols with reconciliation controls, audit-ready statutory evidence systems, exception handling frameworks with case management, and service governance including SLAs, escalation tiers, and incident tracking.
Payroll execution capability begins with documented calendar control: market-specific pay cycle calendars showing cutoff dates for data inputs, manager approvals, payroll changes, and bank submissions across APAC jurisdictions with varying public holiday schedules and statutory timing requirements. Without cutoff discipline, approval delays cascade into missed bank submission windows, off-cycle payment requirements, employee dissatisfaction, and Finance reconciliation complications. Change control governance determines how late changes are handled—whether urgent corrections follow documented exception protocols with approval trails, or become ad-hoc decisions without accountability. Public holiday compression (consecutive holidays reducing approval windows) requires proactive cutoff adjustment protocols preventing processing failures.
What HR should ask for: Request payroll calendars for each target market showing specific cutoff dates by function (HRIS data freeze, manager approvals, payroll change cutoff, bank submission deadlines) with public holiday impact documentation. Review change control protocols showing how late changes are categorized (standard, urgent, emergency), what approval authority applies to each category, and how cutoff exceptions are tracked and evidenced. Verify public holiday governance includes proactive cutoff adjustments and stakeholder communication protocols. Examine approval workflow documentation showing who authorizes payroll changes, what thresholds trigger escalation, and what audit trails capture approval evidence.
Common red flags: Payroll calendars don't exist systematically or are "available on request" rather than proactively documented, cutoff dates are generic guidance without market-specific definitions, change control protocols aren't documented creating ad-hoc exception handling, public holiday impacts aren't proactively managed causing reactive scrambles, or approval workflows lack documented authority thresholds and audit trail requirements.
AYP's approach: AYP maintains documented payroll calendars per market with specific cutoff dates and public holiday adjustments, operates change control protocols with categorized approval workflows and authority definitions, implements proactive public holiday governance with stakeholder communication, and maintains approval audit trails supporting accountability verification—ensuring cutoff discipline prevents processing failures and maintains Finance predictability.
Execution capability depends on systematic variance detection and reconciliation: pre-payroll checks validating inputs against thresholds before processing (headcount changes, salary adjustments, statutory contribution calculations, allowance coding), post-payroll reconciliation comparing processed amounts to expected calculations identifying discrepancies requiring investigation, HRIS integration validation ensuring employee changes flow accurately into payroll without manual handoffs, retroactive adjustment protocols recalculating statutory impacts and producing audit trails, and sign-off processes defining Finance approval before payroll finalization. Without documented variance thresholds and reconciliation protocols, errors surface only through employee queries or Finance month-end surprises—when correction cycles compound operational burden.
What HR should ask for: Request sample variance reports showing what checks run before payroll processing, what thresholds trigger investigation holds, and how discrepancies are categorized and resolved. Review reconciliation checklists demonstrating post-payroll validation steps, variance tolerance definitions, and Finance sign-off requirements. Examine HRIS integration validation protocols showing how employee changes are verified before payroll impact. Verify retroactive adjustment workflows document statutory recalculation methodology, approval requirements, and correction evidence capture. Confirm Finance sign-off processes exist with documented approval authority and timing within payroll calendar constraints.
Common red flags: Variance check protocols don't exist or are described verbally without documented thresholds, reconciliation is "we review reports" without systematic checklists or tolerance definitions, HRIS integration validation relies on spot-checking rather than systematic controls, retroactive adjustment handling is ad-hoc without documented recalculation and approval protocols, or Finance sign-off is informal without documented authority and timing requirements creating month-end uncertainty.
AYP's approach: AYP operates documented variance check protocols with automated threshold validation, maintains reconciliation checklists with Finance sign-off requirements, implements HRIS integration validation controls preventing data quality errors, delivers retroactive adjustment frameworks with statutory recalculation and audit trail capture, and operates Finance approval governance within documented cutoff constraints—ensuring error prevention through systematic controls rather than reactive correction cycles.
Execution capability requires statutory timeline management: documented submission calendars by market showing filing deadlines, contribution calculation verification before submission, submission proof generation and retention (filing acknowledgments, payment confirmations, calculation worksheets), reconciliation protocols comparing submitted amounts to payroll calculations detecting discrepancies, penalty prevention workflows ensuring deadline compliance, and evidence retrieval systems delivering proof within Finance reconciliation timelines. "We handle statutory submissions" without evidence accessibility prevents HR from defending compliance during internal audits, regulatory inquiries, or Finance variance investigations—creating gap between claimed compliance and provable compliance.
What HR should ask for: Request statutory submission calendars showing filing deadlines and provider processing timelines by market. Review sample submission proof packages from recent payroll cycles including filing acknowledgments, payment confirmations, and calculation worksheets. Examine reconciliation protocols showing how submission discrepancies are detected and corrected. Verify penalty prevention workflows include deadline monitoring, proactive alert protocols, and escalation procedures when timing risks emerge. Test evidence retrieval capability by asking how quickly provider can deliver submission proof for hypothetical Finance reconciliation request.
Common red flags: Statutory calendars don't exist systematically preventing proactive deadline management, submission proof isn't systematically retained requiring manual compilation when requested, reconciliation protocols don't exist creating undetected discrepancies, penalty prevention is reactive rather than proactive with monitoring and alert systems, or evidence retrieval timing is unspecified ("as soon as possible") rather than committed service levels supporting Finance timelines.
AYP's approach: AYP maintains statutory submission calendars with proactive deadline management, generates and retains systematic submission proof accessible within Finance timelines, operates reconciliation protocols detecting and correcting discrepancies, implements penalty prevention workflows with monitoring and escalation governance, and delivers audit-ready evidence systems supporting compliance defensibility—ensuring statutory obligations are both fulfilled and provable.
Execution capability reveals itself most clearly through exception handling: off-cycle payment protocols for urgent corrections or advance payments with approval workflows and cutoff implications, termination final pay procedures calculating notice, severance, leave encashment with statutory timing compliance, backpay processing for retroactive salary adjustments recalculating statutory contributions, allowance correction workflows addressing miscoding or policy changes, reimbursement processing with timing and currency handling, commission correction procedures with calculation verification and employee communication, and case management systems tracking exception status, resolution actions, and evidence retention. At 500+ employee scale, exceptions aren't anomalies—they're standard operational requirements requiring documented governance.
What HR should ask for: Request exception handling workflow documentation by scenario type showing approval requirements, processing procedures, statutory impact recalculation methods, and evidence capture protocols. Review case management system examples demonstrating how exceptions are tracked from initiation through resolution with status visibility. Examine typical resolution timelines by exception category with SLA commitments. Verify employee communication templates support HR in explaining corrections maintaining trust. Confirm exception handling costs are included in base pricing versus requiring case-by-case approval creating resolution delays.
Common red flags: Exception handling is ad-hoc without documented workflows requiring case-by-case escalation, case management doesn't exist preventing systematic tracking and resolution visibility, resolution timelines are unspecified or "as soon as possible" without SLA commitments, employee communication support is "you handle that" leaving HR without explanation frameworks, or exception costs require separate approval creating delays during urgent correction needs.
AYP's approach: AYP maintains documented exception handling frameworks by scenario type with approval workflows and case management tracking, provides resolution SLA commitments by exception category, delivers employee communication templates supporting trust-maintaining explanations, includes exception handling in base pricing preventing cost approval delays, and operates audit trail systems capturing complete resolution evidence—ensuring exceptions don't become escalation delays or employee trust incidents.
Execution capability requires service governance infrastructure: SLAs defining response time commitments by issue type and severity level (payroll errors, statutory failures, employee payment issues, system outages) with measurable standards, escalation tier documentation showing contact roles at each level, escalation trigger definitions, and time zone coverage ensuring APAC issues reach decision-makers predictably, incident management systems logging issues with categorization, resolution tracking, root cause documentation, and pattern analysis enabling continuous improvement, post-mortem protocols ensuring significant incidents trigger improvement actions, and business continuity planning defining backup procedures during provider system failures, bank disruptions, or critical resource unavailability particularly during month-end windows.
What HR should ask for: Request SLA documentation showing response time commitments by issue severity. Review escalation tier structures with contact identification, escalation triggers, and regional coverage ensuring APAC timing. Examine incident log samples showing how issues are tracked, categorized, and resolved with root cause capture. Verify post-mortem protocols exist for significant incidents with improvement action tracking. Request business continuity plan documentation showing contingency procedures for system failures, bank disruptions, and key person unavailability during critical payroll windows.
Common red flags: SLAs contain only generic language ("timely response," "best efforts") without measurable commitments by severity level, escalation paths described verbally without documented tier structures or regional contact identification, incident tracking doesn't exist systematically preventing pattern detection and improvement, post-mortem protocols absent so recurring issues aren't addressed systematically, or business continuity planning is reactive ("we'll handle it if needed") rather than proactively documented.
AYP's approach: AYP provides SLA frameworks with measurable response commitments by severity level, maintains documented escalation tiers with regional contact visibility and defined triggers, operates incident management systems with root cause tracking and pattern analysis, conducts post-mortem reviews for significant incidents with improvement action implementation, and delivers business continuity plans with documented contingency procedures—ensuring service governance supports operational predictability and continuous improvement.
Scenario 1: A commission file arrives two hours after documented payroll cutoff in Singapore—affecting multiple sales employees. What happens: does change control protocol categorize this as urgent exception requiring appropriate approval, or does it delay to next cycle creating employee dissatisfaction? How is approval evidenced and correction tracked?
→ AYP's control: Change control protocol categorizes late commission data as urgent exception, documented approval workflow routes to appropriate authority, exception handling framework processes correction with case management tracking, employee communication template explains timing—maintaining trust through governance.
Scenario 2: During Finance quarterly review, a statutory CPF submission discrepancy appears from two months prior requiring itemized calculation evidence and correction within audit timeline. How fast can submission proof be produced, discrepancy investigated, and correction implemented with Finance reconciliation support?
→ AYP's control: Evidence retrieval delivers submission proof and calculation worksheets, reconciliation protocol investigates discrepancy identifying root cause, correction workflow implements fix with statutory recalculation, Finance receives variance explanation documentation—supporting audit timeline without escalation delays.
Scenario 3: A termination requires final pay processing including notice calculation, leave encashment, allowance prorating, and statutory timing compliance—all within five business days per local requirements. How is this handled: documented workflow or ad-hoc scramble? What case management tracks completion?
→ AYP's control: Termination handling framework defines notice calculation methodology, leave encashment protocols, allowance prorating procedures with statutory timing compliance, case management system tracks completion status ensuring deadline adherence, employee communication template explains final pay components—preventing dispute risk through documentation.
Scenario 4: A bank processing delay during public holiday period threatens employee payment date for payroll serving 200+ employees in one market. What contingency process exists: documented BCP with provider bridge funding, or reactive crisis management? How are employees and stakeholders communicated with?
→ AYP's control: Business continuity plan defines contingency funding procedures, provider bridge funding maintains payment timing during bank disruptions, stakeholder communication protocol notifies HR and Finance of situation and resolution, employee communication explains any timing impacts—maintaining operational control during external failures.
Processing means running payroll calculations—which most providers accomplish. Execution capability means documented controls preventing errors before processing (variance checks, reconciliation thresholds), cutoff governance maintaining predictable timing, statutory timeline management with evidence accessibility, exception handling with case management, and service governance with SLA commitments and escalation protocols. Execution capability is evidenced through operational artifacts (payroll runbooks, variance reports, incident logs)—not claimed through "we process payroll accurately."
Without documented calendars showing market-specific cutoff dates by function (HRIS freeze, manager approvals, change cutoff, bank submissions), approval delays cascade into missed bank windows triggering off-cycle payments and employee dissatisfaction. Volume processing at 500+ employees requires systematic cutoff discipline with change control protocols—not ad-hoc coordination. Public holiday compression affecting approval windows needs proactive adjustment protocols. Test by requesting calendars for target markets during evaluation—not just hearing "we manage cutoffs."
Pre-payroll checks should validate inputs against documented thresholds (headcount changes, salary adjustments, statutory calculations, allowance coding) holding processing when variances exceed tolerances requiring investigation. Post-payroll reconciliation should compare processed amounts to expected calculations, validate HRIS integration accuracy, verify statutory contribution correctness, and require Finance sign-off before finalization. Request sample variance reports and reconciliation checklists during evaluation—not process descriptions without documented thresholds.
Request actual submission proof packages from recent payroll cycles including filing acknowledgments, payment confirmations, and calculation worksheets—not descriptions of "we retain evidence." Test retrieval timing by asking how quickly provider can deliver submission proof for hypothetical Finance reconciliation request. Verify reconciliation protocols exist comparing submissions to payroll calculations detecting discrepancies. Evidence accessibility determines whether compliance is provable—not just claimed.
At 500+ employee scale, exceptions (off-cycle payments, retroactive adjustments, commission corrections, termination final pay) occur frequently—they're standard operational requirements, not anomalies. If exception handling is ad-hoc requiring case-by-case escalation rather than following documented workflows with case management tracking and resolution SLAs, execution quality is inadequate. Request exception handling workflow documentation by scenario type, case management examples, and resolution timing commitments during evaluation.
Request SLA frameworks showing measurable response time commitments by issue type and severity level (not generic "timely response"), escalation tier documentation with contact roles and regional coverage ensuring APAC timing, incident logging systems demonstrating how issues are tracked and resolved with pattern analysis, post-mortem protocols for significant incidents with improvement action tracking, and business continuity plans with documented contingency procedures. Governance is evidenced through operational documentation—not contractual assurances.
Request sample month-end report packs across 3–4 target markets comparing format consistency, definition alignment (headcount, FTE, cost allocation, statutory contributions), transaction-level detail availability enabling variance investigation, and delivery timing alignment with Finance close cycles. Test whether reporting enables consolidation without manual aggregation. Verify approval trails, calculation worksheets, and variance explanations are accessible supporting Finance reconciliation requirements without additional requests requiring extended timing.
Demand actual documentation: payroll calendars by market with cutoff dates and public holiday adjustments, sample variance reports showing pre-payroll validation thresholds, reconciliation checklists with Finance sign-off requirements, statutory submission proof packages from recent cycles, exception handling workflows by scenario type, case management tracking examples, incident logs showing resolution patterns, escalation tier documentation with contact identification, month-end report packs across markets, and business continuity plan documentation. Artifacts prove capability—descriptions claim it.
