82,448
edits
Audit: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a| | {{a|devil|}}In a {{risk|firm}} the {{risk|audit}} trail fulfils following functions: | ||
In a {{risk|firm}} the {{risk|audit}} trail fulfils following functions: | |||
*'''Documenting compliance''': evidence of compliance with internal policy and process, albeit this is [[substance and form|form without reference to substance]]. | *'''Documenting compliance''': evidence of compliance with internal policy and process, albeit this is [[substance and form|form without reference to substance]]. | ||
*'''Assign responsibility''': To memorialise decision-making — to assign individual responsibility — but at the same time to record qualifications, derogations, assumptions and conditions upon those decisions — that is, to ''diffuse'' responsibility for the decision. | *'''Assign responsibility''': To memorialise decision-making — to assign individual responsibility — but at the same time to record qualifications, derogations, assumptions and conditions upon those decisions — that is, to ''diffuse'' responsibility for the decision. | ||
The key for decision-makers is to articulate ''qualitative'' conditions — that require comprehension of the subject matter — and not quantitative ones, that can be easily measured by the audit function. This allows the [[SME]], to whom the consultant will inevitably turn, to create her own qualitative conditions. If she is experienced, her conditions will be in the gift of a third SME, who will create her own qualitative conditions in the gift of a fourth. Eventually the trail will lead in a bureaucratic [[Möbius loop]] back to legal, and the [[Circle of escalation|circle of diffusion]] will be complete. | The key for decision-makers is to articulate ''qualitative'' conditions — that require comprehension of the subject matter — and not quantitative ones, that can be easily measured by the audit function. This allows the [[SME]], to whom the consultant will inevitably turn, to create her own qualitative conditions. If she is experienced, her conditions will be in the gift of a third SME, who will create her own qualitative conditions in the gift of a fourth. Eventually the trail will lead in a bureaucratic [[Möbius loop]] back to legal, and the [[Circle of escalation|circle of diffusion]] will be complete. | ||
==={{risk|Audit}} is the triumph of [[Substance and form|form over substance]]=== | |||
Burgeoning {{risk|complexity}} means a preference for substance over form. As previously rehearsed, the more complex the {{risk|firm}} the less likely {{risk|individual}}s are to understand the totality of their own subject, let alone the broader organisation (no one knows how to make a pin), much less be responsible for it. <br> | |||
Form is, by definition, easily articulated. It is measurable, observable, auditable. “Did you review that template by year end?” has a yes/no answer which is easily given in the affirmative. All you need is a diary and a decent sense of time management. ''A machine could do it''. “Did you review the template ''properly''?” is a harder question to answer. In the same way, “Did you check it against policy, legal developments and corresponding templates?” is a tougher question, but still has a yes/no answer. It functions like a [[The Checklist Manifesto - Book Review|checklist]]. <br> | |||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[Internal audit]] | |||
*[[La Vittoria della Forma sulla Sostanza]] | |||
*[[Circle of escalation]] | |||