By now, most internal auditors are aware that The IIA has released long-anticipated proposed revisions to its Global Internal Audit Standards. As I recently shared in an AuditBoard blog calling attention to these changes, they would represent “the most sweeping change to the standards in more than 20 years, and present a significant opportunity for internal auditing and its future.”
Until now, I have elected not to provide extensive public commentary on the proposed standards, preferring instead to offer (generally positive) feedback to IIA leadership privately. However, there is one particular proposed change that I feel compelled to address: The standards would mandate ratings (rankings or other indications of priority) for internal audit engagement findings and a rating for the aggregated engagement results.…
Readers of my blogs will know that I often draw attention to new thought leadership on the internal audit profession. I recently highlighted some timely benchmarking data from The IIA. Over the years, there have been countless research reports, surveys and opinion pieces published that have served to advance the profession. The global business consulting firm, Protiviti, recently, published the findings from its 2023 Next-Generation Internal Audit Survey. I was pleasantly surprised by some of the results.
As Protiviti’s headline declares – “Internal audit’s path to continued delivery of value and relevance is strongly tied to adopting innovative approaches to talent, and technology enablement…” I suspect most of us would agree with that assessment – no surprise there.…
For 15 consecutive years, The IIA has used its impressive reach to survey internal audit professionals throughout North America. The 2023 North American Pulse of Internal Audit report is now available, and it once again offers timely data for benchmarking by leading internal audit functions. It should be considered a go-to resource for those dealing with budgeting, staffing and risk-based audit planning.
For this year’s report, The IIA surveyed more than 560 senior internal audit leaders – 83% of whom are CAEs. Respondents were primarily from organizations headquartered in the United States (83%) and Canada (11%). As in past years, audit leaders were surveyed on key resource trends and internal audit’s plans and priorities.
…
Relationships between audit committees and chief audit executives (CAEs) have become increasingly more complex as the risks facing organizations have become more diverse and dynamic. Indeed, audit committee members often comment that they are turning to internal audit more often for an expanding scope of assurance and advisory services.
But the relationship between the audit committee and the CAE is often complicated by personal dynamics and the awkwardness that comes with “constructive feedback.” As a result, I have often found that audit committees are uncomfortable pointing out to the CAE what internal audit could do better. Instead, they leave it to management to deliver the news, and the translation isn’t always pure.…