Providing Internal Audit Opinions

Todd Davies — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 08:41:10 +0000

In the course of my work with various clients and committees, the nature of internal audit opinions continues to be a misunderstood area. Even with carefully defined scopes, roles and responsibilities there appears to be a regular expectation gap between the level of assurance given by internal audit teams, and that understood by those relying on them.

Disclaimers and caveats in audit reports and engagement letters are often brushed over, until something goes wrong, and then can cause great tension between those providing the internal audit assurance, and those relying on their work. Rightly or wrongly, the classic “where were the auditors” line is begging to be pulled out, and is often the first response.

In my experience, issues usually arise as a result of expectations gaps around the nature of audit opinions rather than negligence, but this takes time to disentangle after the fact. The better option of course, is to get this squared away up front.

As part of my work in helping the market to get more sophisticated about the nature and level of assurance commissioned and provided, I’ll be leading an on-line masterclass for the Institute of Internal Auditors in Australia on Tuesday May 4 from 1:00pm AEST.

Through structured discussion and practical exercises, this course will take participants through a framework for providing internal audit opinions, including being clear on when to use them, how to use them, legal implications, how to navigate overlaps between different assurance standards and frameworks and an appreciation of the IIA’s official guidance in this area.

While this is targeted towards internal auditors in particular, this course will also be relevant for anyone who regularly relies on internal audit reports such as the senior finance team, C-Suite and audit committee members.

For more information and registration, please got to the Institute of Internal Auditors’ Australian website.

To subscribe to this series of occasional articles and case studies, please click here.

Enterprise Governance – bringing strategy, risk, governance and assurance functions together

Todd Davies — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 04:56:29 +0000

Silos. It’s a word that can fill you with dread if your responsible for the governance of an organisation, yet they keep on appearing. Organisational theory is currently aguing for matrix structures, but if you’ve ever tried to run one you’ll know that shared accountability without the right tools is the same as no accountability at all. Silos are alive and well.

TDA has track record in brining these functions together for greatest impact. We can help to ensure:

Duplication between assurance functions is minimused
Assurance programs are focused on what really matters
Risk management has a top-down view of strategic risks
Emerging risk capability informs the strategy and risk functions
Strategic risk insight informs the strategy process
Strategy drives capability development

To find out more, contact us.

To subscribe to this series of occasional articles and case studies, please click here.

Todd Davies & Associates » assurance

Providing Internal Audit Opinions

Enterprise Governance – bringing strategy, risk, governance and assurance functions together