Archive

Archive for the ‘IIA’ Category

Leading the 21st century organization

October 6, 2014 1 comment

I have been a fan of Tom Peters (author of “In Search of Excellence” and many more books) for more than 20 years.

While CAE at Tosco Corporation, I attended a presentation by him on something he called Wow! The concept, which I not only wrote about for the Internal Auditor magazine in 2001 but tried to incorporate into my internal audit practice, is to turn every project into something that you would tell your grandchildren about (Wow! indeed).

Tom is now 71 but hasn’t slowed down. He is amazingly actively presenting all over the world, writing books, and on Twitter (where we interact from time to time).

Recently, he was interviewed by McKinsey and I recommend reading the full piece. Here are some excerpts.

“My real bottom-line hypothesis is that nobody has a sweet clue what they’re doing. Therefore you better be trying stuff at an insanely rapid pace. You want to be screwing around with nearly everything. Relentless experimentation was probably important in the 1970s—now it’s do or die.”

“…the secret to success is daydreaming.”

“If you take a leadership job, you do people. Period. It’s what you do. It’s what you’re paid to do. People, period. Should you have a great strategy? Yes, you should. How do you get a great strategy? By finding the world’s greatest strategist, not by being the world’s greatest strategist. You do people.”

“We’re in the big-change business, aren’t we? Isn’t that the whole point? I mean, any idiot with a high IQ can invent a great strategy. What’s really hard is fighting against the unwashed masses and pulling it off—although there’s nothing stupider than saying change is about overcoming resistance. Change is about recruiting allies and working each other up to have the nerve to try the next experiment. You find allies. You encircle the buggers.”

“I’m more than willing to say that today’s two year old is going to deal with his or her fellow human beings differently than you or I do. But the reality is it’s 2014, not 2034, and I would argue that for the next 20 years, we’re still safe believing in the importance of face-to-face contact. I’m not arguing against virtual meetings, but I’m telling you that if I’m running IBM, I want to be on the road 200 days a year as much in 2014 as in 2004 or in 1974. It has nothing to do with the value of the tools, but I’ve got to see you face to face now and then; I don’t think I can do it all screen to screen.”

“At some deep level, people are people, and so I believe passionately that there is no difference between leading now and leading then. What I certainly believe is that anybody who is leading a sizable institution who doesn’t do what I did and take a year off and read or what have you, and who doesn’t embrace the new technology with youthful joy and glee, is out of business.”

This last is 100% consistent with the quote from another McKinsey Quarterly issue I used in Management for the Next 50 Years:

“Those who understand the depth, breadth, and radical nature of the change and opportunity that’s on the way will be best able to reset their intuitions accordingly, shape this new world, and thrive.”

Do you agree?

Auditing Risk Appetite

September 27, 2014 9 comments

Regulators around the world are calling for organizations to establish a risk appetite framework. This is primarily for financial services organizations and especially their financial-related risks. But some are extending the idea to organizations in other sectors and for non-financial risks.

The regulators have not heard the risk experts who disparage the concept of risk appetite. While I agree that it is a flawed concept, we have to recognize that it is a required practice for many and should find a way to address related regulations.

What is risk appetite?

In 2013, The Financial Stability Board (FSB) published “Principles for an Effective Risk Appetite Framework” (intended to apply only to financial services organizations) in which it included a number of definitions:

Risk Appetite: The aggregate level and types of risk a firm is willing to assume within its risk capacity to achieve its strategic objectives and business plan.

Risk Appetite Statement: The articulation in written form of the aggregate level and types of risk that a firm is willing to accept in order to achieve its business objectives. It includes qualitative statements as well as quantitative measures expressed relative to earnings, capital, risk measures, liquidity and other relevant measures as appropriate. It should also address more difficult to quantify risks such as reputation and money laundering and financing of terrorism risks, as well as business ethics and conduct.

Risk Appetite Framework (RAF): The overall approach, including policies, processes, controls, and systems through which risk appetite is established, communicated, and monitored. It includes a risk appetite statement, risk limits, and an outline of the roles and responsibilities of those overseeing the implementation and monitoring of the RAF. The RAF should consider material risks to the firm, as well as to the firm’s reputation vis-à-vis policyholders, depositors, investors and customers.

The FSB document includes some useful language (emphasis added):

“An effective RAF should provide a common framework and comparable measures across the firm for senior management and the board to communicate, understand, and assess the level of risk that they are willing to accept. It explicitly defines the boundaries within which management is expected to operate when pursuing the firm’s business strategy. Firms that implement a RAF most effectively are those that incorporate the framework into the decision making process and into the firm-wide risk management framework, and communicate and champion the framework throughout the organisation, starting from the top. However, it is important to check that the ‘top down’ risk appetite is consistent with the ‘bottom up’ perspective. The assessment of a firm’s consolidated risk profile against its risk appetite should be an ongoing and iterative process. Implementing an effective RAF requires an appropriate combination of policies, processes, controls, systems and procedures to accomplish a set of objectives. The RAF should enable risk capacity, risk appetite, risk limits, and risk profile to be considered at the legal entity level as well as within the group context. As such, an effective and efficient RAF should be closely linked to the development of information technology (IT) and management information systems (MIS) in financial institutions.”

The FSB recognized that while it is useful for management to propose and the board to approve “aggregate level[s] and types of risk a firm is willing to assume”, real value is not obtained unless every risk-taker (which amount to every decision-maker) understands how these limits apply to their actions and responsibilities – and acts accordingly. The FSB guidance includes these among the requirements for “business line leaders and legal entity-level management” (emphasis added):

“a) ensure alignment between the approved risk appetite and planning, compensation, and decision-making processes of the business unit and legal entity;

“b) cascade the risk appetite statement and risk limits into their activities so as to embed prudent risk taking into the firm’s risk culture and day to day management of risk;

“c) establish and actively monitor adherence to approved risk limits;”

The most significant problem with this notion is that it is impossible to define every risk that decision-makers might take in the course of running the business, especially when risks are changing constantly and what the business should accept also changes as business conditions change.

Fortunately, the FSB looks to internal audit to ensure that the RAF meets the needs of the organization and is not a static document that is meaningful only to the board.

The FSB publication includes requirements for internal audit to assess the RAF. They say that “internal audit (or other independent assessor) should (emphasis added):

“a) routinely include assessments of the RAF on a firm-wide basis as well as on an individual business line and legal entity basis;

“b) identify whether breaches in risk limits are being appropriately identified, escalated and reported, and report on the implementation of the RAF to the board and senior management as appropriate;

“c) independently assess at least annually the design and effectiveness of the RAF and its alignment with supervisory expectations;

“d) assess the effectiveness of the implementation of the RAF, including linkage to strategic and business planning, compensation, and decision-making processes;

“e) validate the design and effectiveness of risk measurement techniques and MIS used to monitor the firm’s risk profile in relation to its risk appetite;

“f) report any deficiencies in the RAF and on alignment (or otherwise) of risk appetite and risk profile with risk culture to the board and senior management in a timely manner; and

“g) evaluate the need to supplement its own independent assessment with expertise from third parties to provide a comprehensive independent view of the effectiveness of the RAF. “

This is useful for anybody who wants to audit risk management, even if for a non-financial institution.

I translate all of the above to answering these questions:

  1. Do those responsible for taking risks, whether in the executive suite or in the trenches of the organization, have the guidance they need to ensure that risks they are creating and/or managing are maintained at levels acceptable to the board? This should include both the mitigation of excessive adverse risk and addressing situations where insufficient risk is taken (e.g., where a manager is overly cautious to the detriment of the organization).
  2. Is that guidance updated and communicated as business conditions (internal and external) change?
  3. When management proposes and the board approves strategies, plans, objectives, and similar, is appropriate consideration given to risks to those strategies and objectives?
  4. Is necessary and appropriate risk information (including the results of risk monitoring) provided to the board, executives, and other managers so they can effectively direct and manage the organization?
  5. Are exceptions appropriate reported and addressed?
  6. Is performance management (especially reporting) adequately integrated with risk management, and are those responsible for driving performance against objectives also held responsible for addressing risks to those objectives?

That ‘guidance’ could be in the form of a risk appetite statement (or similar) as envisaged by the FSB and described in COSO’s ERM – Integrated Framework, or in the form of risk criteria as required by the global risk management standard, ISO 31000:2009.

What I especially like about the FSB list of questions (and reflected in mine) is that it recognizes that mere compliance with an RAF is an insufficient audit approach; it is critical to assess whether it is current, timely, communicated broadly, and meets the needs of the business.

I welcome your comments.

Leaders of internal audit should never be satisfied

September 12, 2014 7 comments

If you think you are world-class, it is time for you to consider change.

Our organizations and the risks they face are changing constantly and the pace of change is increasing.

Jack Welch once said: “If the rate of change on the outside exceeds the rate of change on the inside, the end is in sight.”

We should never be satisfied with where we are today, as this represents a risk that we will not be sufficiently agile to deal with risks tomorrow.

Here are a couple of excerpts from my book, World-Class-Internal Audit: Tales from my Journey. The first is on the need for change:

OK, you and your team have been recognized as adding huge value and being world-class.

Do you stop there, confident and happy in your success?

No. What is world-class for your organization today may be insufficient for tomorrow.

The CAE should have a thirst for change and growth. Learn not only from other internal audit leaders and what they do well. Learn from leaders of other organizations entirely, like Marketing and Sales.

I like to read magazines like Fast Company because they profile innovative and creative thinkers in all walks of life. Maybe what works for them could, with some tailoring, work for me. At least it might stimulate me to think about something I had never thought about before. It might stimulate me to challenge what had worked for me in the past.

Innovative leaders think outside the box. They create something that excels and they love it. They love it so much it becomes a box for them and limits their ability to discard it in favor of something new.

We should not only think out of the box, but stay out of the box, and kick it as soon as somebody builds one.

This is what I had to say about the future of internal audit:

Internal audit has made great strides since I first became a CAE in 1990.

We have moved the edge of the practice from controls auditing to assurance over governance, risk, and control processes.

The majority of CAEs now report directly to the audit committee with functional reporting to at least the CFO if not the CEO.

But that leading edge is a thin one.

Far too few internal audit departments assess and provide assurance on the effectiveness of risk management.

Even fewer consider the risks of failures in governance programs and processes and include related engagements in their audit plan.

As I travel around the world, talking to internal auditors from Malaysia to Ottawa, I find a consistent pattern of growth. But, there remain pockets where the internal auditor is only there so that management can “check the box”. This seems especially true in government (from local to national), where internal audit departments are upgraded or disbanded based on politics – a concept I find abhorrent in what should be an independent and objective function.

Part of the problem is that audit committees don’t understand the potential of internal audit – and too many CAEs are not educating them. So, they don’t demand more and too many CAEs are satisfied doing what is expected without trying to change and upgrade those expectations.

Still, I expect that internal auditing practices will continue to improve. Organizations need them, as PwC says, to move to the “next platform” and provide assurance that is not just about what used to be the risks, but what they are now and will be in the near future.

Our business environment is becoming more complex, more dynamic, and changing at an accelerating speed. I expect that internal audit leaders will risk to the challenge.

Those that do will create a competitive advantage for their organizations.

Does your internal audit department need to change? Is it able to deliver world-class products and services that represent a competitive advantage for the organization? Do you help them increase the likelihood and scale of success?

Are you ready to adapt to tomorrow’s challenges?

I welcome your comments.

Auditing Forward

September 6, 2014 13 comments

One of the new Core Principles for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing proposed by the IIA’s Exposure Draft (if you haven’t seen it, read it, and responded please do so) is:

  1. [Internal Audit is] insightful, proactive, and future-focused.

The last two adjectives, proactive and future-focused, translate to internal audit “auditing forward”.

This is an expression I only heard for the first time this year. It may have been one of the other members of the IIA Task Force that used it; but whoever said it, it resonated with me.

I have a chapter on “Auditing Forward” in my book on World-Class Internal Auditing and the best way for me to explain my thinking is through excerpts.

I assess my effectiveness as CAE by my ability to prevent internal control or risk issues when I can, rather than identify them (and find fault) when they already exist and represent an obstacle to organizational success.

If you are familiar with the CSI TV series, you can imagine a crime scene investigator entering a room and telling a detective “you have a dead body”. If I can, I prefer to be working with management to ensure there are reasonable controls that would prevent a dead body.

That means a couple of things: seeing the value of internal audit as helping improve risk management and controls, and “auditing forward”.

“Auditing forward” means being involved in new initiatives and projects [such as a pre-implementation controls review of a new IT system], providing consulting advice that helps management implement a reasonable level of controls and security.

It means seeing our success as linked to the success of management. If management implements a new system without sufficient controls or security, when we had an opportunity to warn them, it reflects as a failure on our part. Either we failed to identify the issue, to persuade management it was important, or to work with them on corrective actions that addressed the problem.

………………………………………………………………………………………….

“Auditing forward” also means auditing the risks that impact today and tomorrow, not limiting your focus to what has happened in the past.

Is there value in somebody telling you that the road in front of the house you lived in last year is being repaired? You only want to know about road conditions where you are likely to drive now or in the future.

In the same way, internal audit needs to provide assurance and consulting advice on the risks of today and tomorrow. Telling management what has been a problem in the past has some limited value, but only to the extent that those conditions continue to exist and similar problems may continue into the future.

Wayne Gretzky’s father advised him to “skate where the puck’s going, not where it’s been”.

Internal auditors need to take this advice to heart and audit where the risk is going to be, not where it has been.

That requires:

  1. Being sufficiently agile to change the internal audit plan as risks and business conditions change; and,
  2. Knowing that risks and business conditions are changing.

………………………………………………………………………………………….

Business leaders and the board like it when internal auditors talk about the business using the language of the business; when we can demonstrate that we understand what the company is doing and where it wants to go; and, where we can show that our work is directed to helping them succeed – arriving safely where they want to go.

Do you “audit forward”?

I welcome your views and comments.

Dynamic, iterative, and responsive to change

August 23, 2014 4 comments

One of the principles for effective risk management in the ISO 31000:2009 global risk management standard is that risk management should be “dynamic, iterative, and responsive to change”.

I really like that. It captures a number of key ingredients for the effective management of uncertainty and risk.

Dynamic” implies that risk management operates at the speed of the business. It is far more than the occasional, even if regular, assessment of a list of so-called top risks. “Dynamic” is when the consideration and management of risk is part of the fabric of the organization, and an element in daily decision-making and operations of the organization. It is active and essential.

Iterative” is about a reliable set of processes and systems for identifying, assessing, evaluating, and treating risk. It means that when management makes decisions, based in part on risk information, there are proven processes and the information is reliable.

Finally, “responsive to change” is essential when risk changes at speed. Every day there is a potential surprise, a new or changed situation to which the organization should at least consider responding. It could be a shift in exchange rates, a change in the government of a nation where you do business, a flood that affects the supply of a critical component, the decision in a court case that affects you directly (because you are a party) or indirectly (because it creates a new interpretation of a regulation with which you must comply), the loss of a key customer, a new product from a competitor, the loss of a key employee, or so on.

Stuff happens and it changes or creates risk.

The organization must be responsive to change, nimble and agile in modifying strategy and execution.

All of this applies not only to risk management but also to internal audit (and to finance and the rest of the organization, in truth).

Is your internal audit function “dynamic, iterative, and responsive to change“?

For that matter, do IT, Finance, Operations, and so on meet the principle behind that phrase?

Or are they slow, scattered, and stubbornly reluctant to change?

Is that a risk to which we must respond?

I welcome your comments.

Where is internal audit world-class?

August 17, 2014 20 comments

A conversation I just had with Michael Corcoran left me wondering which companies have now or in the past had what one might consider “world-class” internal audit departments?

My personal view is that the CAE is the last person to say his or her internal audit department should be considered world-class.

Instead, that should only be awarded by members of the audit committee or top executives (although I am not sure I would give as much credence to the opinion of a CFO who wants IA to focus on financial and compliance risks).

I would allow members of the audit team to make the award based on what they hear from senior operational executives.

As a former CAE, I am going to hold to my word and not name any of my prior teams. If they want, they can speak for themselves.

So, please use the comments to identify the IA departments you think are world-class and why.

SEC and SOX plus COSO 2013 News

August 16, 2014 4 comments

I want to share two situations/reports. The first relates to SOX, the second to COSO 2013.

 

SEC Charges SOX 302 Violation

On July 30th, the SEC published a press release “SEC Charges Company CEO and Former CFO With Hiding Internal Controls Deficiencies and Violating Sarbanes-Oxley Requirements”.

Here are the key points in the SEC’s remarks:

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires a management’s report on internal controls over financial reporting to be included in a company’s annual report.  The CEO and CFO must sign certifications confirming they’ve disclosed all significant deficiencies to the outside auditors, reviewed the annual report, and attest to its accuracy.

The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that CEO Marc Sherman and former CFO Edward L. Cummings represented in a management’s report accompanying the fiscal year 2008 annual report for QSGI Inc. that Sherman participated in management’s assessment of the internal controls.  However, Sherman did not actually participate.  The Enforcement Division further alleges that Sherman and Cummings each certified that they had disclosed all significant deficiencies in internal controls to the outside auditors.  On the contrary, Sherman and Cummings misled the auditors – chiefly by withholding that inadequate inventory controls existed within the company’s Minnesota operations.  They also withheld from auditors and investors that Sherman was directing and Cummings participating in a series of maneuvers to accelerate the recognition of certain inventory and accounts receivables in QSGI’s books and records by up to a week at a time.  The improper accounting maneuvers, which rendered QSGI’s books and records inaccurate, were performed in order to maximize the amount of money that QSGI could borrow from its chief creditor.

According to the SEC’s orders, Sherman and Cummings signed a Form 10-K and Sherman signed a Form 10-K/A each containing the false management’s report on internal controls over financial reporting.  And each signed certifications required under Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in which they falsely represented that they had evaluated the report and disclosed all significant deficiencies to the auditors.

What is new is that the executives were found to have violated not only the annual Section 404 requirement that the SOX compliance program is generally focused on, but the quarterly Section 302 certification process.

I have been warning, in both my SOX book for the IIA and in my training classes that ‘one of these days’ somebody would be charged with a Section 302 certification violation. In my conversations with the SEC when I was writing my SOX book for the IIA, they indicated that Section 302 violation was a future rather than a current focus.

But here they are now.

In the Section 302 certification, the CEO and CFO personally sign, and therefore are liable, that the following statements are true:

“The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and ICFR (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

  • Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
  • Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such ICFR to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
  • Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
  • Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s ICFR that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

“The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

  • All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of ICFR which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
  • Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.”

In the book, I say:

“…. prudence suggests that management:

  • Has a reasonably formal, documented process for making the quarterly assessment that is included in the 10-Q and supports the Section 302 certifications.
    • This can be included in the activities of the company’s disclosure committee, which most of the larger companies have established.
    • The process should include the assessment of all internal control deficiencies known to management, including those identified not only during management’s assessment process but also by either the external auditors in their Sarbanes-Oxley work or by internal audit in its various audit activities.
    • The system of ICFR must provide reasonable assurance with respect to the quarterly financial statements and the annual statements. The quarterly assessment is against a lower — typically one quarter the size — determination of what constitutes “material”.
    • The process and results should be reviewed and discussed with the CEO and CFO to support their Section 302 certifications.
  • Confirms that the external auditors do not disagree with management’s quarterly assessment.
  • Understands ― which requires an appropriate process to gather the necessary information ― whether there have been any major changes in the system of internal control during the quarter. A major change can include improvements and degradations in the system of internal control. While Section 302 only requires the disclosure in the 10-Q of a material weakness and the communication to the audit committee of a material or significant deficiency, the correction of a significant deficiency may be considered a major change and, if so, should be disclosed.”

Question: Have you discussed with and obtained guidance from your legal team whether a potential material weakness identified by your periodic SOX testing means that the CEO and CFO should not say, in their current quarter Section 302 certification, that the disclosure controls are effective?

 

Mapping of Controls to COSO 2013 Principles is Wrong

I am still trying to get information on what the major auditing firms are telling clients about COSO 2013.

I was able to get on a call with a Deloitte practice partner and one of the SOX/COSO leaders in the Deloitte head office.

It was refreshing to hear that they understand that the top-down and risk-based approach mandated by PCAOB Auditing Standard Number 5 remains at the heart of the firm’s approach.

The head office leader made a comment that I like very much.

She said that many registrants are trying to map all their (key) controls from 2013 to one or more of the COSO principles.

This is wrong.

There is no such requirement, nor is it useful.

What is needed is to demonstrate which controls are being relied upon to support management’s determination whether the principles are achieved.

I cover this in detail in the SOX book and in my SOX Master Class training. Basically, my approach is to determine how a failure to achieve a principle might raise the level of risk of a material error or omission above acceptable levels; we then identify the key controls that will be relied upon to address such risks. Where the risk is assessed as low, management’s self-assessment of the controls may be sufficient.

Unfortunately, I know of at least one Deloitte senior manager who doesn’t understand.

I wonder how many other external audit teams are ‘requiring’ that companies do more than is necessary.

Please share through comments or private email to me at nmarks2@yahoo.com.

 

I welcome your insights and observations.

World-Class Internal Audit

August 13, 2014 4 comments

Over the years, I have had the privilege of leading world-class internal auditors – world-class people who deliver world-class internal audit services to our customers on the board and in management.

I hesitate to call the teams I have led world-class. There has always been room for improvement.

But our customers and peers have called us world-class. For example, executives and audit committee members have said:

  • “Internal audit provides us with a competitive advantage”
  • “You have yet to perform an audit I wouldn’t gladly pay for”
  • “You help the audit committee sleep through the night”
  • “You are not a typical internal auditor”

When Arthur Andersen (and then Protiviti with KnowledgeLeader) built their on-line repository of best practices, ours was the first internal audit function profiled.

Now that I am retired (even if still busy), I have found the time to collect stories from my professional life in a new book: World-Class Internal Audit: Tales from my Journey (see below for links to the book). These are stories about experiences that have shaped me as a leader as well as how I approach internal audit.

World-Class Internal Audit

My hope is that the book will not only be an easy and entertaining read, but my successes and failures, together with my reflections, will help you as you consider your own career.

Some stories are, I hope, amusing. Some are about learning experiences (i.e., mistakes and embarrassments) from which I grew.

I have also included comments and observations from members of my teams, some of whom followed me as I moved to other companies. For example, a current chief audit executive who worked with me at two different companies had this to say:

“Norman had a unique leadership philosophy where he adapted to the demands of the situation, the abilities of the staff and the needs of the organization. He was able to move between leadership styles utilizing the one needed for the challenges that the company was facing. He was at times visionary along with a coaching emphasis while not micromanaging. Norman set high standards, was democratic but occasionally would utilize a classic authoritarian style when needed with certain employees and situations. Norman moved easily between leadership styles which resulted in developing World Class departments. As the Chief Audit Executive for a semiconductor company I still consult Norman on various audit topics and practice leadership techniques I learned under his tutelage.”

The book is available in paperback (or on Amazon) or as an e-book (Kindle).

Here’s one of the stories in Chapter 5 on the topic of “the value of writing and teaching”. The ‘David’ referred to was my boss at Coopers, David Clark.

My next adventure took me into a new and smaller world: the world of microprocessors.

People I knew were buying do-it-yourself microcomputer ‘kits’ from mail order stores, and the technical computing journals were starting to hint that these devices had the potential to move from a hobby to a business tool. In 1974, a company called Zilog was founded and in 1976 they introduced the Z80, an 8-bit microprocessor that was a significant advance from the early Intel 8080 model. The Z80 allowed more powerful devices and the military, in particular, used it extensively. The Z80 powered early business computers, such as the Osborne, Kaypro, Xerox 820, Radio Shack TRS 80, and Amstrad. I purchased a Radio Shack TRS 80 Model II a little later – but that’s another story.

I believed in the potential and wanted to share that vision with the rest of CAG. After obtaining materials directly from Zilog and accumulating a number of pieces from journals, I started to write. I was smart enough to include diagrams, but not smart enough to please David with the initial drafts of my paper.

After I had exhausted my patience and wanted to give up, and David had nearly exhausted his patience with me, he gave me two pieces of sage advice:

  1. Tell him (in person) why this is important. Say it and then write what you said. As you are saying it, learn from the listener (David) how to express your thoughts in a way that will be understood – and learn what not to say because it will not be understood.
  2. Avoid technical language and use ordinary English where possible. If you have to be technical, explain the terms clearly so that the non-technical person will understand.

I ended up writing a much longer piece, but it worked. While not everybody would share my opinion of the potential, everybody understood what I was talking about.

Later that year, I was asked to be one of the teachers at the off-site training session for people joining CAG. This was a wonderful learning experience for me. The task of teaching meant that I had to master the fundamentals of what I needed to teach. It was also essential that I avoided technical language when plain English could be used – and that I explain the technical in easy-to-absorb-and retain terms.

This set of experiences led me to require all of my staff to:

  • Write and speak for the people who are listening, the people you are trying to influence, inform, or persuade
  • Write and say what they need to hear, rather than what you want to say
  • Use language they understand. If they don’t start with a decent understanding of the topic, explain any technical terms in ways they can understand
  • Give examples and use diagrams; they are of great value in expressing ideas, especially to those who are visually oriented (i.e., absorb concepts from seeing better than they do by reading). I became used to getting up and using a chalkboard to diagram and explain what I was trying to communicate
  • Master the fundamentals: you won’t get far explaining anything unless you have deep understanding of the topic yourself

I hope you enjoy this story and consider the book.

Advancing the Practice of Internal Audit

August 9, 2014 17 comments

As I mentioned earlier, I was honored to be a member of the Re-Look Task Force that has proposed changes to the IIA’s standards framework (IPPF).

One of the changes is to introduce Core Principles for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing.

The first nine are “motherhood and apple pie” restatements of what I hope we all know are necessary attributes of internal auditing, such as our integrity, resources, and ability to communicate. They are important to restate because although they may be obviously necessary, they are not all always present in practice.

For example, I continue to meet CAEs who don’t have sufficient resources to address more than a handful of critical risks. The last has been charged with all the SOX work without being given the resources necessary to provide both his core internal audit assurance work and the consulting services necessary to manage the SOX program.

The three that I think will help advance the professional practice of internal auditing are the last three on the list (which should be the first three).

10. Provides reliable assurance to those charged with governance.

11. Is insightful, proactive, and future-focused.

12. Promotes positive change.

What is “assurance”? Our stakeholders need to know if the processes for governance, management of risk, and the related controls can be relied upon to manage critical risks at acceptable levels: whether they will enable the organization to take the right risks with confidence and achieve or surpass objectives.

They need our professional opinion.

I hope this principle will advance the practice of providing such an opinion, a formal one, to the board and top management.

A list of deficiencies is not assurance.

#11 is very interesting. Surveys continue to tell us that our stakeholders on the board and in executive management want more from us. In addition to focusing on the right risks (a deficiency in our practice according to recent PwC and KPMG surveys), they value our insight – what we can tell them about management processes and practices beyond what we might put in the audit report.

Our traditional role is to report on what has happened (and gone wrong) in the past – hindsight. We should instead help our organizations, their executive team and board, manage into the future.

This means moving from hindsight to foresight with insight into current and foreseeable conditions.

We should be proactive in looking at changes in business systems and processes, organizational structures and staffing, and more – providing consulting services to help ensure our future is one with adequate management of risk, including security and controls.

The great Canadian ice hockey player, Wayne Gretzky, was asked “what is the secret of your success?” His answer:

“I skate to where the puck is going to be

We need to audit where the risk is going to be.

The last talks about the need to do more than make a recommendation and let management respond. We need to promote positive change. I ask that you read and comment on my article in the August issue of the Internal Auditor magazine on “The Internal Audit Evangelist”.

In another article in the same issue, the author talks about his department achieving an acceptance rate of 84% on its recommendations. Management accepted and implemented 84% of internal audit ratings.

My comment?

That is a 16% failure rate!

Where is the value when management only occasionally listens to us?

How will management see us if we frequently are unable to see business risks and needs in the same light as they see them?

There is zero value in recommendations.

There is only value in positive change.

We should work with management to ensure we agree on the facts, agree on the risk to objectives (specifying which are at risk), agree on whether that risk should be accepted or treated, and then agree and help them determine the best path forward.

If the great majority of internal audit departments are able to say that:

  1. We provide our stakeholders with the assurance they need to manage and direct the organization with confidence
  2. We provide insight into current conditions and our work is focused on the risks that will face the organization as it moves forward, and
  3. We work with management to effect positive change

the professional practice of internal audit will be one worthy of pride.

I welcome your thoughts and comments.

Updating the IIA Standards

August 7, 2014 3 comments

The IIA is asking for its members’ opinion on a set of proposed changes to the framework for its Standards (the IPPF). The detailed Standards are not changing, but the proposed changes are significant and merit every audit professional’s attention.

The proposal was crafted by a select group of practitioners called the “Re-Look Task Force”, and I was privileged to be a member.

The proposal explains the recommended changes and asks a number of questions to elicit members’ opinions and suggestions for improvement.

I encourage all IIA members across the world to read the proposal carefully and provide your input.

You should receive a copy of the proposal from your institute. You can also download it from either the IIA Global or IIA North America web site. In addition, Hal Garyn, a Vice President with The IIA, has recorded a video (http://auditchannel.tv/video/1321/The-IPPF-Is-Evolving-How-You-Can-Help).

I want to share my perspective on the changes, hoping that might be useful to you.

The proposal represents the consensus view. While there were, in a few cases, disagreements among the task force members, those disagreements were minor. The questions we included are designed to address those issues.

The task force discussed whether it was time to make a change to the Definition of Internal Auditing. Quite a few changes were suggested, but in my view they were only tinkering with the words and not changing the underlying message: that ours is an assurance activity (in my opinion this is our primary mission) that also helps our organizations succeed through consulting/advisory services that contribute to the improvement of governance, risk management, and related control processes.

We talked about changing “consulting” to “advisory”. We talked about ways to make the wording more succinct.

But in the end, it was tinkering and we recognized a change could lead to issues where the Definition has been incorporated into other standards, corporate governance codes, and so on.

I think the right decision was made, to leave the Definition unchanged.

We also talked about the Standards being “principle-based” rather than “rule-based”. If so, what are the principles?

Again, we spent a lot of time defining and then wordsmithing the principles.

I think the list included in the proposal is a good one. I will write separately about some of the principles and why I like them.

One of the questions is whether the principles are shown in the best order. This is one area where I was in the minority. While I see the logic of the proposed order, I would put the last three first as they represent what we are all about. The other nine are how we get there. You can share your opinion by answering a question on the order of the principles.

Although presented before the principles, the discussion of a mission came after.  I like it! It is short and sweet and captures the essence of the purpose and value of internal auditing.

I like the other suggestions for supplemental guidance, guidance on emerging issues, and local guidance. The last should be useful where local practices are in a different environment than in other countries. For example, I work with IIA chapters and institutes around the world and know that in some nations there are many family-owned corporations; in others there are a lot of government-owned for-profit companies. There will now be a place for local IIA organizations to craft guidance that addresses local issues in ways global guidance cannot.

If you haven’t already seen the proposal, please watch for it and if necessary check the IIA web site.

Feel free to share your thought here for discussion.

Changes to IIA Blog Sites

August 2, 2014 Leave a comment

For those of you who are interested in the blogs I and others post for IIA, here are the new addresses:

Marks on Governance

Chambers on the Profession

From the Mind of Jacka

Saint on Getting Things Done