In this article
Separate viewing records from moving money or changing access, then review each role against the work the person actually performs.
A job title is a poor substitute for a permission review. Two employees called “manager” may have different responsibilities, while a bookkeeper may need broad visibility without the ability to issue refunds. Start with the actions a person must perform, the information those actions expose and the changes they can make.
Read the scope of the role
Helcim provides fixed default roles, including Administrator, Manager, General Staff, Developer and Accountant. Its default-role guide describes the Accountant role as read-only and the Administrator role as broadly privileged. Its custom-role guide separates permissions such as viewing transactions, processing, refunding, capturing and settling, alongside banking and employee-management permissions. A role’s friendly name is not a complete description of its reach.
Helcim’s employee setup guide calls for individual employee accounts instead of shared account credentials. Separate identities support clearer responsibility when reviewing an event. This article is a planning exercise; actual invitations, role assignments and security changes belong to an authorized account administrator following the business’s procedures.
Build a fictional action map
Imagine a three-person supply shop. The counter employee accepts ordinary sales and resends receipts. The bookkeeper reviews statements and reconciles deposits. The owner approves unusual refunds and controls banking details. Write those jobs as verbs before selecting any role. “Review deposits” and “change bank account” may concern the same subject while carrying very different consequences.
For each person, consider three columns: must do, must view and should escalate. The counter employee might need to view a transaction to resend its receipt but escalate a refund. The bookkeeper might need to see a refund record without creating one. The owner needs an explicit process for covering absences so staff do not solve an urgent customer issue by sharing the owner’s login.
The exercise does not assume that one built-in role perfectly matches each fictional person. Compare the current permission list and, where appropriate, have the authorized administrator evaluate a custom role. Avoid selecting every permission in a category simply because one item is needed. Review associated actions as well as the main label.
Test what is allowed and what is blocked
- Can the person complete the intended routine task with their own account?
- Can they see information unrelated to that task?
- Can they reverse money, alter future billing or close a batch unexpectedly?
- Can they change banking details or expand another person’s access?
- Is the escalation route workable when a permitted task reaches a boundary?
Use approved test procedures and avoid generating live financial transactions merely to explore access. A review should establish expected capability without creating a real charge, refund or customer communication. Record the tested role and date because permissions and responsibilities can change.
Review transitions, not only new hires
A temporary weekend assignment may end while its permissions remain. A bookkeeper may leave, or a counter employee may become responsible for refunds. These transitions deserve a deliberate review of access and open work. Identify who will own unresolved disputes, recurring exceptions and reconciliation questions before removing a departing person’s access.
Do not confuse deactivating an employee with deleting the history of their work. Use the current authorized access-management workflow and retain the business records needed for operations. If an administrator-level change has special restrictions, follow Helcim’s support process rather than improvising around it.
Make the decision explainable
A good access note says, “This person needs statement and transaction visibility for reconciliation; refund and banking changes remain with the owner.” That explanation can be reviewed against actual duties. “They are trustworthy” is important socially but does not identify what system access their job needs. The goal is a workable division of responsibilities that remains understandable when the team changes.