Internal audit: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Your department’s commitment—probably given, in a typical moment of weakness or inattention, by the [[GC]] who was [[GC]] three [[GC]]s ago—to review annually the firm's fleet of template [[confidentiality agreement]]s is a fertile hunting ground for the kind of operational error incidents which are [[IA]]’s meat and drink. | Your department’s commitment—probably given, in a typical moment of weakness or inattention, by the [[GC]] who was [[GC]] three [[GC]]s ago—to review annually the firm's fleet of template [[confidentiality agreement]]s is a fertile hunting ground for the kind of operational error incidents which are [[IA]]’s meat and drink. | ||
It will not matter whether anyone ''used'' the template, much less that there was nothing ''wrong'' with it — your failure to do what [[Chip]], in your absence<ref>Indeed, likely before your employment, in a kinder time, before the great financial crisis.</ref>, committed to do, [[quod erat demonstrandum]] is grounds for | It will not matter whether anyone ''used'' the template, much less that there was nothing ''wrong'' with it — your failure to do what [[Chip]], in your absence<ref>Indeed, likely before your employment, in a kinder time, before the great financial crisis.</ref>, committed to do, [[quod erat demonstrandum]] is grounds for censure. | ||
Similarly, a fellow hazards instant dismissal should he not complete all [[computer based training]] by the designated time — there will be many system-generated email reminders, make no mistake — no matter how pointless the topic<ref>Health and safety in employment and records management are always good ones</ref> or asinine the training on it may be. | Similarly, a fellow hazards instant dismissal should he not complete all [[computer based training]] by the designated time — there will be many system-generated email reminders, make no mistake — no matter how pointless the topic<ref>Health and safety in employment and records management are always good ones</ref> or asinine the training on it may be. | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
{{seealso}} | {{seealso}} | ||
*[[Substance and form]] | *[[Substance and form]] | ||
*[[Computer-based training]] | |||
*[[Bloatware]] | *[[Bloatware]] | ||
*[[Technology paradox]] | *[[Technology paradox]] | ||
Revision as of 17:04, 2 September 2019
|
Men and women who understand the deadline for everything, but the point of nothing, these are the blessèd folk whose lot in life is to assess your compliance with measurable criteria because — not being subject matter experts — they have no means of assessing anything else.
Your department’s commitment—probably given, in a typical moment of weakness or inattention, by the GC who was GC three GCs ago—to review annually the firm's fleet of template confidentiality agreements is a fertile hunting ground for the kind of operational error incidents which are IA’s meat and drink.
It will not matter whether anyone used the template, much less that there was nothing wrong with it — your failure to do what Chip, in your absence[1], committed to do, quod erat demonstrandum is grounds for censure.
Similarly, a fellow hazards instant dismissal should he not complete all computer based training by the designated time — there will be many system-generated email reminders, make no mistake — no matter how pointless the topic[2] or asinine the training on it may be.
By contrast, your total incompetence when negotiating a critical indemnity will fly leagues over their heads. Because internal audit wouldn't have the first clue what gross negligence even is, let alone what amounts to it, much less how one would recognise an indemnity if one happened across one, whether carved out or not.
The secret, for the most part, is to steer clear of service level agreements, key performance indicators, target operating models. Articulate your contribution to the ongoing well-being and measurable aspects of your performance. The experienced commercial solicitor is a vessel for ineffable wisdom. His output is incomprehensible genius. So in large part this is quite manageable.
Internal audit as bloatware
Internal audit as we know it today is possible only thanks to the information revolution, whose enabling technology naturally captures, time-stamps and taxonomises every corporate neuron fired across the theatre of chaotic conflict comprising a modern corporation’s immortal soul. Once upon a time those, neurons had form only in the terse syntax of printed memoranda languidly stewarded between the in-trays and pneumatic nodes of the organisation, by wheezy mailmen with green visors and sleeve garters. In that benighted time there was nothing much to audit, and no-one paid much mind to the curmudgeonly old chap in the basement office who was asked to do it.
Who monitors the monitors?
Internal auditors have recently hit upon the need to internally audit themselves. To the extent there is not something auto-erotic about this, there is something potentially dystopian about it. May this be the point, greatly anticipated, at which the fallow corporation — famously, a person in legal fiction, able to sue and be sued but not one in a social sense, able to share a pint down that the local — becomes self-aware?
See also
Dramatis personae: CEO | CFO | Client | Employees: Divers · Excuse pre-loaders · Survivors · Contractors · The Muppet Show | Middle management: COO · Consultant · MBA | Controllers: Financial reporting | Risk | Credit | Operations | IT | Legal: GC · Inhouse counsel · Docs unit · Litigator · Tax lawyer · US attorney Lawyer | Front office: Trading | Structuring | Sales |