You are on page 1of 6


Frank Knight

Consultant, Canada

This article explores some of the challenges in developing audit findings. The message is
that there are more ways than one to approach the audit and that the auditor should not be
constrained by a rigid application of the standard methodology. We present here two
alternative approaches. Simply stated they are:

Traditional Model: What should be; what is; finding results from identification of a gap or

Alternative (or Converse) Model: What is; what could be; finding results from judgement
of whether appropriate / not appropriate in the circumstances.

Traditional Model
The standard approach is to compare what is in place against a standard or criterion. The
auditor defines what should be in place to manage a function. In financial audit, the audit
refers to GAAP (generally accepted accounting practices). In performance audit, the
auditors develop audit criteria against which the management systems, procedures and
practices can be compared.

The auditor can then determine whether the organization is being managed according to
these standards. In this way, the auditor generates findings where there is a gap between
what should be in place and what is in fact in place. The auditor thus identifies a finding
as a situation where there is a discrepancy between what should be (the criterion) and what
is. In this way findings are generated. This is the theory normally presented in audit

Furthermore, it is commonly believed that without a criterion, a finding cannot exist. In

practice, this is not a reasonable assumption. Especially in performance audit, it is possible
to encounter situations that had not been anticipated. Or, the experience of the auditor is
insufficient to develop a sufficiently complete set of criteria to apply to the area being

During the audit process, the auditor may sometimes encounter, or observe, a situation that
is obviously, or apparently, wrong but for which, no prior criterion had been developed.
Some auditors then go back and “invent” the appropriate criterion. This is not
intellectually honest.

International Journal on Governmental Financial Management – 2008 133

Where an unsatisfactory situation is encountered where no prior criterion has been
developed, the auditor should recognize, nevertheless that a reportable observation has
been made. When discussing this type of observation with the management of the
operations, it should be explained (if the original set of criteria had been given to
management prior to the start of the audit) that no prior criterion had been developed but
the concern is still a reality. Management should be persuaded that there is a concern, or,
if there is a good explanation for the problem, the observation should take this into

Alternative (or Converse) Model

Another approach, as often applied in social studies, is to examine what is in place, i.e.
how the managers are managing their business. With this approach, the auditor notes
situations where results are not being achieved, where errors are occurring, where there is
waste or mismanagement. Also, of course, the auditor notes, and in some cases provides
assurances, where the operations are carried out successfully.

With this approach the auditor still needs to know what is usual practice and should always
develop appropriate criteria. This knowledge and set of “expectations” is needed to
conduct the audit. The emphasis of the audit work, however, is on understanding how the
managers have chosen (or been forced) to manage the particular situation. The concept
here is that if it works (and that there are no serious risks that it may fail in a particular
situation) then the auditor may accept that it is appropriate even if it is different from
normal practice.

At the same time, the auditor should understand why it may differ from the criteria
developed before-hand or, where no criterion had been developed to address the situation,
why an additional criterion is required. There can be many reasons why it does not
conform to normal practice.

In discussion with management, the auditor confirms that there are problems or reasons for
doing things differently, and determines the cause(s) of this condition. Thus the auditor
confirms the situation and determines what observations are appropriate in the
circumstances. Then the auditor concludes what changes should be made to improve the
management structure, processes and practices and makes recommendations.

Often in governments that are short of funds the “best” management practices may not be
realistic. For the auditor to recommend more funds (or suggest systems that would be
beyond the budget of the organization) will not be helpful in the situation. The auditor
should suggest perhaps different methods, or different allocation of effort to improve
overall performance.

134 International Journal on Governmental Financial Management – 2008

The Difference
In practice, both directions of logic are used. Yet, it is important that the auditor is aware
of the alternative approaches. Understanding the reality and adjusting expectations
accordingly is more realistic, and certainly more useful, than limiting the audit process to
one of comparing “what is“ with “what should be” to produce the audit findings.

Not Necessary to Have Every Criterion Addressed and Every Finding Reported

The “traditional” approach is often combined with the insistence that every criterion should
be addressed and a finding reported, either that the practice is consistent with the criterion
(a positive finding) or that there is a deficiency (a negative finding). The difficulty with
this is two fold:

The auditor is forced into reporting matters that may not be of significance; and/or
In some cases, extensive evidence (e.g. a large sample size) is required to ensure the
validity of a positive finding (i.e. the provision of assurance).

There should be continual review of the audit work to ensure a trade-off between allocating
scarce audit resources to insignificant areas and obtaining sufficient evidence to arrive at
supportable conclusions for significant findings. This means that the auditor should not
always attempt to produce a complete set of findings.

It is more important to report on a few key audit concerns than provide a “complete” audit
coverage. Furthermore, many small findings can detract from the main message the
auditor wishes to provide management. Some managers want to be provided all the
detailed findings, while others want a concise report that conveys just the important
message. This is a reporting issue but from the findings perspective, the message is that
many detailed findings are not necessary.

In most cases, where the report is more than say 15 pages long, there should be an
Executive Summary. This should provide a clear and meaningful message that has limited
details. It should provide a summary of the audit objectives and scope, the main findings,
the significant conclusion(s) and a list of the more significant recommendations contained
in the main body of the report. Even in the main body of the report, it is preferable to keep
the communications simple and clear, placing detailed calculations and listings of
detailed observations in appendices."

International Journal on Governmental Financial Management – 2008 135

Clusters of Findings
The ability to cluster minor and/or detailed findings into a more generalized finding is a
valuable skill the auditor should develop. For example, the auditor may discover: errors in
reports / late in issuing reports / poor planning process for issuing reports / no knowledge
of what information managers need / lack of clear/consistent definitions used in reports.
These in themselves may not be very significant findings but collectively they indicate
serious problems in the management of the reporting function. The higher level finding
can be expressed as “inadequate reporting of the state of operations”. The conclusion can
then be stated as “management are unable to rely on the reports provided them”. At all
times, the auditor must ensure that the lower level findings are sufficient to be able to
support the higher level finding.

Scope of the Audit Coverage

The INTOSAI standards state that only evidence related to the originally identified audit
problem should be collected28. This position raises some interesting ethical issues.
Presumably the intention is to not “conduct a witch hunt”. First, the auditor should never
conduct the work in a subjective or personal manner. There should be no “hidden agenda”
or a wish to blame an individual manager. Nevertheless limiting the collection of
information solely with regard to the original audit scope presents some problems. As with
a financial (or attest) audit, there are very clear procedures to follow and well defined
scope of audit. Nevertheless, in for example a financial audit, should any evidence of
fraud, or suspected fraud, come to light, it is the duty of the auditor to extend coverage as
appropriate in these circumstances. Similarly, it is suggested that if any unacceptable
situation is encountered during a performance audit, the evidence should not be ignored.

Proper procedures should be followed of course. Where evidence is found outside of the
original scope or subject of audit, the auditor should consult with his/her audit manager
and then with senior Audit Office management. After that, if it is still considered
appropriate to pursue the area further, the contact at the audit entity should be consulted
and the situation explained. At this point, it may be agreed that the area should be included
in the audit.

Need for Judgement

In practice, the process of determining findings can vary considerably. Some findings are
a clear “right” or “wrong”. Often, however, the findings are not that simple.

According to Code of Ethics and Auditing Standards, INTOSAI, 2001, page 70, Findings are "the specific
evidence gathered by the auditor to satisfy the audit objectives". This means that only findings that are
directly or indirectly related to the selected audit problem(s) are relevant in the audit.

136 International Journal on Governmental Financial Management – 2008

Some activities in audit are fairly mechanical. A set of calculations are made to determine
whether the reported data are accurate. This could be in support of an assessment of the
value of assets, the statement of revenue, the level of efficiency, or the amount of time a
vehicle spent in maintenance and repair. Other activities can be highly judgemental.

Example: Analysis of Investment Options

In an investment analysis, the auditor needs to determine whether an appropriate set of
options was considered before making the decision of which option to select. In this
situation, the auditor would not accept:
do nothing;
spend at least ten times as much; and
accept option presented.

This would not constitute a realistic set of options for analysis. On the other hand, if the
auditor wishes to observe that insufficient options were considered, he/she must be
prepared to put forward realistic and meaningful options that should/could have been
assessed in the particular situation.

Example: Responsibilities Cleary Allocated

It is common to include a criterion that states: “roles and responsibilities should be clearly
allocated”. It is generally a sound management practice to allocate responsibilities clearly
and hold one individual responsible for certain activities. Another style of management,
however, contradicts this principle. The “duplicate tasking” manager tasks more than one
individual to carry out the same work. Then the manager receives more than one result
and can select the preferred result (or even have a competition between the staff). On the
basis of the pre-defined criterion, this “duplicate tasking” manager is not carrying out the
job properly. The finding is that responsibilities have not been assigned clearly.
Alternatively, the auditor documents the process followed by the “duplicate tasking”
manager and before coming to a clear finding, explores the consequence of this manager’s
approach. If morale suffers, and there is serious waste of effort then the “duplicate
tasking” approach could be considered inappropriate. Alternatively, the auditor may find
that the “duplicate tasking” manager receives much better information and makes more
informed decisions with the duplication of effort.

Example: Strategic Planning Process in Place

The auditor must guard against acceptance of a process in place rather than testing whether
the process is meaningful. An interesting example was an audit of military planning. The
first auditor examined the systems and processes in place for strategic planning and
concluded that these were well presented and applied. Another auditor came along and
asked a simple question: “How would the department integrate the reserves with the
regulars in the case of war?” This simple, but significant, question had not been addressed
and the department agreed it was a key consideration. Thus the strategic process in place

International Journal on Governmental Financial Management – 2008 137

may have been impressive as a process but had failed to recognize significant scenarios
that the strategic process had to address.

Audit has to rely on sound professional knowledge and application of appropriate

methodology but the successful auditor cannot operate without good judgement and an
open and enquiring mind.

138 International Journal on Governmental Financial Management – 2008