Audit procedure and working paper management system
The audit team plans procedures, compiles documents and combines conclusions. The work shows the necessary revisions and the acceptance checks of the task.
Queries, selections, documents, responses, procedures and reviews are managed in multiple tools. The audit team collects documents for a long time, adjusting their relationship to procedures and making it harder to sequence what has already been reviewed.
How the solution works
- Checking the acceptance of the task and the applicable independence conditions
- Linking risks to planned procedure and selection
- Obtaining and evaluating the appropriateness of proof
- Document performance, conclusion and review response
- Complete the file with the necessary decisions and change history
Key challenges
- Audit evidence is collected and checked manually
- Audit quality and independence control does not reach the task
Solution capabilities
Admission Controls
The task and team are associated with adequacy, independence and required quality review decisions. The company level register can remain separate.
The logic of the procedure
Risk, claim, population and selection purpose are associated with the procedure being performed. An automatic anomaly is not a self-evident violation.
Evidence assessment
The resulting document has origin and version; the specialist assesses its suitability for a specific conclusion. The presence of the file does not prove sufficiency.
Review work
A comment is associated with the procedure and has a responsible answer. A closed comment retains what has been altered or reasonably unaltered.
Case completion
The required release and file management controls apply. A later change preserves the cause as well as the previous version.
Business context
- Audit evidence is collected and checked manually
- Queries, selections, documents, responses, procedures and reviews are managed in multiple tools. The audit team collects documents for a long time, adjusting their relationship to procedures and making it harder to sequence what has already been reviewed.
- Audit quality and independence control does not reach the task
- Checks on client acceptance, team eligibility, independence and required review are stored separately from specific audit work. Remaining endorsements are not always visible to enforcers. The lack may become apparent after the task is already started or completed. The team has to stop the related work and re-align their progress until the responsible professionals make the necessary decision.
- The need for the required works and submissions is clearer to the auditor
- During the audit, the client must provide information and the team must evaluate it and make reviews. The associated course helps coordinate the remaining work and substantiate its necessity. This facilitates cooperation and scheduling of deadlines while maintaining the auditor's independent professional decision.
Core features
- Admission Controls
- The logic of the procedure
- Evidence assessment
- Review work
- Case completion
Key integrations
- Task Acceptance and Quality Registers
- Applied Control Decision, Team Eligibility and Review Appointment.
- Client documents and audit data
- The origin, version of the evidence, circumstances of receipt and the population required for the procedure.
Potential impact (%)
The ranges indicate an illustrative relative change in the metric under the stated assumptions. Results depend on the starting position and actual use of the solution. Percentages for different metrics must not be added together.
Evidence-based search work
16–42%Decreasing
This illustrative scenario assumes that 40-70% of information searches and repeated cross-checks can be addressed. That share is assumed to fall by 40-60%. Company data is needed to verify both the addressable workload and the resulting change.
Measure working minutes during the review to restore the basis of the selected conclusion.
Surplus Re-Requests
12–42%Decreasing
This illustrative scenario assumes that 30-60% of errors can be addressed through the data and rule checks described. That share is assumed to fall by 40-70%. Company data is needed to verify both the addressable share and the resulting change.
Count repeated requests for a team not found the document already received, separately from the need for reasonable additional proof.
Conditional calculation scenarios. The assumptions have not been validated against client measurements.
When this solution is relevant
- Audit procedures are carried out by several specialists and evidence and review notes are kept separate.
- It is difficult to determine which procedures have been completed and what the final conclusion is based on.
Implementation requirements
Audit professionals approve the methodology, customer acceptance and independence checks, and requirements for audit evidence. Documenting and reviewing procedures is compatible with the audit tools used, and professional decisions are made by auditors.
Further development options
- Additional audit areas according to their risk, document nature and methodology used.