Recommendations should never be developed in an ivory tower. Rather, bringing in the auditees during the recommendations phase and challenging them to develop SMART recommendations will enhance the quality of your recommendations. Proper process should counter any issues with objectivity that may arise.
Relevant recommendations are hard
This is a no-brainer for most auditors. Concisely describing your findings in a manner that all relevant readers can understand is an often underestimated task. Developing SMART recommendations related to these findings can be even more challenging, especially in a subject area which is technical.
Nevertheless, auditors often insist on their independence and objectivity as an argument to only involve the auditees in the report finalization phase. The auditees are confronted with a set of well-intended recommendations with proposed deadlines, and often only have a limited time to react. And that’s a problem.
Recommendations are not after-thoughts
Rather, they are core to the relevance of internal audit as a profession. Hence, ensuring relevance and feasibility of recommendations should never be the last item to check off the checklist before issuing the report. Rather, it should be core to a separate audit phase, the recommendation phase, where auditees and auditors come together to analyze how to best approach the findings.
But what about independence and objectivity?
We can’t involve the auditees in the recommendation development phase because involving them will impede our independence. Will it really? I’m not too sure about that.
Independence is a means to objectivity. Objectivity allows to judge adequate due diligence and report on that. That’s at the level of findings.
However, adapting processes, systems or behaviour to improve due diligence in an organization is, at the end, a management decision. As auditors we have the right to independently point out the direction we believe to be most optimal to address the issues raised. We cannot take the place of management and force them in a certain direction.
Hence, rather than believing that involving auditees in the recommendation process will impede our objectivity, I am convinced that not involving them in the recommendation development and only allowing their input as an after-thought will empede our future independence. Why? Well, imagine they will chose a route different from the one we as auditors proposed. Imagine that we invested a lot in developing this recommendation. Pride is a human characteristic. I sincerely believe the risk of not being able to objectively assess auditees’ response is a bigger issue than involving them in the process to begin with.
Mind first, words later
There’s another element to take in account. Most of the obvious solutions we as auditors with a limited working knowledge of practical, technical situations can come up with have been tried, tested and often dismissed as not feasible or ineffective in the past by those auditees.
“Most complex problems have simple solutions, which are most often wrong.”
I don’t remember the source of the above quote, and I’m not quoting it verbatim either, but there is quite a lot of thruth in it. To not only patch but really solve certain issues, we need to look at creative solutions for them. The best possible way for me is to combine the critical attitude of the auditor with the in-depth knowledge of the auditee to examine new, creative ways of issue resolution.
But what if you don’t agree?
Auditors are independent. Imagine an auditee supports a certain solution which you are convinced will never really address the issue. The audit report should clearly state this and describe both the proposed solution by the auditee and the solution or ideas of the auditor, as well as the motivation why the auditee response is inadequate. This way, the audit committee and the board have all relevant information to decide on a recommended course of action.