Internal audit: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
These are the blessèd folk whose lot in life is to assess your [[compliance]] with measurable criteria because — not being [[subject matter expert]]s — they have no means of assessing anything else. | These are the blessèd folk whose lot in life is to assess your [[compliance]] with measurable criteria because — not being [[subject matter expert]]s — they have no means of assessing anything else. | ||
Your department’s commitment—probably given by the | 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 severe 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. | |||
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 [[carve out|carved out]] or not. | 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 [[carve out|carved out]] or not. | ||
Revision as of 14:09, 21 May 2018
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 severe 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 wellbeing 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.
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 |