You are on page 1of 12

EVALUATION OF MAS

ENGAGEMENT
Evaluation of Engagement Performance
■ The consultant can maintain the confidence of his clients only as
long as his services are of a professional quality.
■ An objective evaluation of each completed engagement can
uncover opportunities for constant improvement of quality of
services and consequently, for growth.
When to Evaluate
■ Although a continuing review and comparison of status to plan takes place
during a properly conducted engagement, there is a need to evaluate
performance after the engagement has been completed in order to improve
advisory services.
■ Evaluation should take place continuously during an engagement and after
its completion.
■ The final evaluation must be done immediately after completing an
engagement because by then, the pertinent aspects of the engagement can
still be remembered and remedial measures can be adopted as soon as
possible.
What to Evaluate
■ Evaluating MAS Engagement refers to comparing performance with the plans for the
engagement together with established firm policies.
■ Aside for the actual results of the engagement, there should be an evaluation of
different aspects of the engagement for which objective evidence is available such
as the:
• Proposal
• Engagement program
• Work program and schedule
• Source data and documentation
• Reports
Suggested Criteria
■ Most of the guidelines for performance within the various phases
of an MAS engagement have general applicability so that they
constitute a framework of standards for conducting engagement.
■ The following are the minimal criteria as issued by the AICPA to be
assured of an engagement quality control.
Proposals
■ Were specific problems with the client encountered which might
not have arisen if the problem area had been adequately covered
in the proposal letter?
■ Did the proposal letter recognize all requirements of firm policy in
establishing the engagement?
Engagement Program
■ Did additions to or deletions from the planned scope occur during
the engagement? For what reason? Were those changes approved
by responsible client personnel?
■ Is there evidence that the skill level of personnel utilized was not
commensurate with the requirements of the phase to which they
were assigned? If so, specify the indicator, phase, individual and
recommendations for future engagements.
■ Were utilized techniques performed in accordance with firm policy?
What change in techniques would you recommend for a similar
engagement?
Schedule
■ Did actual duration differ significantly from plan? State your opinion
as to reason(s) for deviation.
■ If dates of interim reports or engagement completion were not in
accordance with prior client agreement, state reason.
Documentation
■ Were recommendations to the client, oral, or written, supported by
adequate evidential matter in the work papers?
■ Are there specific respects in which organization or content of work
papers are not in accordance with minimum standards of the firm?
If so, describe.
■ Was it necessary to do additional work and/or recontact client for
additional information before making a final report? Describe
circumstances.
Reports
■ Were progress meetings held with, or interim reports made to the
client? If not, state reason.
■ Did errors of fact occur in interim or final reports?
■ Are there specific changes which you would recommend in report
content, format or style to improve effectiveness?
Results
■ It is in the evaluation of results that extreme caution must be
observed so that personal views are not allowed to cloud available
objective and quantifiable.
■ Were all recommendations accepted by the client? If not, why?
■ What degree of satisfaction was expressed by the client?
■ Describe any phase or circumtances in which dissatisfaction was
expressed (or implied) by the clients and the reason.
■ Were additional services, either implementation or a new survey
engagement, requested by the client?
Responsibility for Evaluation
■ The review of the technical aspects of an engagement should be
undertaken by MAS personnel who did not perform the work.
■ The number and level of the personnel responsible for evaluation
are based on the organization structure and size of both firm and
its MAS function.

Related Interests