Smart writing?
In "Write SMART" (April 2008), professors Adams and Winstead have a point that audit reports should be SMART. However, some practices they suggest are off the mark. Most troubling is the suggestion that each report be "different in structure," depending on the audit's "nature and results." Also troubling are the suggested recommendations for internal auditors.Internal audit functions strive for consistent structure from report to report. Consistency is important for large audit functions that issue many annual reports, and is also valuable for smaller ones. Suggesting otherwise is out of touch with real-world practices. Consistency has a major advantage for readers: It enables comparisons from report to report. Audit committees, in particular, do not want structure to be changed continuously. Consistency also has advantages for writers--they write more efficiently, and their reports require less rewriting and editing. Adams and Winstead say, "several iterations may be necessary before a final report is completed." However, most internal audit functions do not have time for multiple iterations. In my experience, maintaining consistent structure is the best way for internal auditors to shorten report-issuance time.
Furthermore, Adams and Winstead's suggestions on audit recommendations are troublesome because they suggest a prescriptive recommendation--those that tell not only what needs to be done, but also how to do it. In addition, the recommendation in their illustration stipulates who should perform a particular task and how often. Deciding who does what and when is management's job, not internal auditing's, unless mandates are in play. Further, in making prescriptive recommendations, internal auditors fail to honor management's ability to resolve the issue in a better way than recommended.
Issuing audit reports that are SMART requires particular focus and skill. Internal audit functions serve their organization best when they communicate through a well-defined and consistent report structure within which they make cause-focused recommendations to management.
SALLY F. CUTLER
President
Word-Wrights Inc.
Syracuse, N.Y.
[email protected]
THE AUTHOR RESPONDS Sally Cutler is misinterpreting the statement that each report be different in structure depending on the audit's nature and results. This statement is in regard to each company's internal audit report. Because audit issues vary from one company to the next, audit reports will not be structured the same. Unlike a standard external audit report, which has a specific structure depending on the issued audit opinion, there is no standard structure for an internal audit report. Of course, within a particular company, auditors would want to have a consistent internal audit report from year to year. However, each auditor determines that structure.
Regarding the comment on "several iterations," I'm not aware of any good writing that takes place without drafting and reviewing before a final report is issued. These iterations are for the writer and are part of the process of good writing.
BARBARA L. ADAMS, PHD, CPA
Professor of Accounting and Consultant
South Carolina State University
Orangeburg, S.C.
[email protected]
 Printer friendly
 Cite/link
 Email
 Feedback
| |
| Publication: | Internal Auditor |
|---|---|
| Article Type: | Letter to the editor |
| Date: | Jun 1, 2008 |
| Words: | 483 |
| Previous Article: | The value of questioning. |
| Next Article: | Dancing around the issue. |
| Topics: | |
| Writer's Digest Books. |