A book the IIA should read
As the IIA absorbs what the practitioner community is saying about its flawed draft update of the Standards, I have suggested that they read my book, “Auditing what matters“.
The review panel included eminent practitioners, with several former IIA chairs:
- John Fraser
- Steve Goepfert
- Larry Harrington
- Tom McLeod
- Patty Miller
- Michael Parkinson
- Dominique Vincenti
In the Introduction, I wrote:
Over the last years, significant progress has been made in the professional practice of internal auditing, especially when it comes to risk-based auditing. I especially like some of the new Core Principles for effective internal auditing that were adopted by the Institute of Internal Auditors in 2015[1]. They include the principles that internal audit:
- Communicates effectively
- Provides risk-based assurance
- Is insightful, proactive, and future-focused
- Promotes organizational improvement
Is internal auditing communicating, in an appropriately timely manner that supports decision-making by the board and management team, whether the risks that matter to the success of the organization are managed as desired?
Is internal auditing really thinking about the road ahead and the risks around the corner, or is it focused mainly on past activity and current capability?
Is it effective, as effective as it can and should be, in helping the organization bring its systems, processes, organizational structure, and people to the desired level of performance?
My question to the IIA and all of you is:
Will the IIA’s draft move our profession and its practice forward to achieve these Core Principles?
I welcome your thoughts.
[1] The Core Principles were included in the update of the International Professional Practices Framework (IPPF), as recommended by the IIA’s Relook Task Force, of which I was privileged to be a member.
Leave a comment
Norman Marks on Governance, Risk Management, and Internal Audit 
Excellent Qn (“Will the IIA’s draft move our profession and its practice forward to achieve these Core Principles?”).
An equivalent one would be ‘How does the draft does not move … forward, or -worse – moves backward … ‘ ?
I presume you wrote repeatedly on this, and that I read most of these articles, but do not remember if they focused on this particular aspect of CPs: How the Draft fails to preserve or build on the CPs … that clearly you consider OK/More than OK.
Personally, I am still ‘sitting on on the fence’, taking full advantage of the great arguments on/from both sides of the ‘divide’, not least yours. I am in effect resigned to the change bringing both big improvements and big ‘deteriorations’, seeing the (somewhat uncompromising or irreconcilable ?) reasoning from great minds on both sides (and assuming that there must be much truth in what all these great minds think/say). I admit, though, to still having not read much of the draft (I am ashamed to say) from lack of time from too much work. And hazard going one (irresponsible) step further, in the direction of descending from the fence, to say first impression from whatever I saw – VERY FAR FROM ANYWHERE NEAR ENOUGH – not positive. But maybe ‘prejudiced’ from reading all those articles of yours … (for which I truly thank and appreciate you)
I just found, and read (in fact re-read- I had forgotten) this post of yours (- sorry …):
Comparing the draft IIA Standards and the Core Principles for Effective Internal Audit
March 18, 2023