Blog Recreating the internal audit agenda

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) formally defined internal auditing as an independent, objective assurance and consulting activity designed to add value and improve an organization’s operations. It is focused on a broad range of evaluation and improvement activities like risk management, control and governance processes. Still many internal audit functions lack the knowledge required to expand the focus of the audit plan.

In the areas of internal audit today, the need for excellence prevails. Most importantly, in fact, that audit teams are constantly fighting for the goals of the audit plan, meeting deadlines, and staying within budget. While all of these are important goals in a larger system of things, finding more time to hit the Director’s level goals is part of the battle. Understanding the concept behind the audit is important. Risk-based research has become a widely accepted system of risk assessment. However, for better or for worse, repetition and historical patterns still exist in modern auditing systems.

As often as possible, coverage of auditing and risk reduction may still be (and sometimes should be) in the ecological cycle. “We reviewed this area / region / process last year and my audit plan says I should do the same thing again,” said Mr or Ms Audit Director. If so, what can we do to eliminate difficult management and manual labor in jobs that need to be well defined and spontaneous?

Perhaps there is a new model of efficiency here, which includes a decline in planning and performance in the field through historical audit projects, while at the same time using our risky audit system. This frees up time to identify new processes and activities that can ensure greater integration and better engage with management.

Audit systems come in a variety of shapes and sizes, depending on how technology creates the format and how team members interact with the data. Most of the time these research files are stored in a predefined folder system and placed on top of each other. The end result: the issues of integrity and the many translations that represent different truths. If we submit to the view that multiple types and editing may increase the risk of substandard working papers, then there should be a better response.

The same meeting should be followed by the whole team to ensure that normal procedures are maintained. This represents the highest level of audit files, divided into Edit, field function, results, updates, issues and compliance, to name a few variations. At the bottom – at the Level of Process, Objective and Procedure / Control – where transformation often creates problems with integrity and control of translation.

One of the great advantages of using an audit management system is that the software allows for the safekeeping of Standard Audit Templates that reflect the primary copy of that financial or operating procedure. This flows the previously identified data on Process, Risks and Control to the team’s latest and most effective template

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *