Bank internal control review management system
Bank control staff collect inspection documents, record deficiencies and track their correction. Reviewing shows what has been verified and what has not yet been resolved.
There is a lack of used rules, data, and judgement on the findings to the verification result. The team has to re-assemble the documents and explain what the subsequent corrections have changed.
How the solution works
- The purpose, scope, source of execution and receiver are identified for control.
- The required data set or expert presentation is obtained with the right version.
- The control worker provides the applied criterion, the result and indicates what he has checked. Documents are linked to a specific check.
- The exception is assigned to the original process owner and returned for re-checking.
- The accepted proof is linked to the required submission and subsequent correction.
Key challenges
- The basis of control and the reporting fact is not restored
Solution capabilities
Designation of checks
The bank's specialists in charge of control specify what needs to be checked, what requirements to rely on and who will do the job. The enforcer receives a clear verification task.
Version and criterion
Numerical or expert verification maintains the rule used at the time and the definition of sufficient proof.
Origin of data
The result is associated with the right period, the primary source and its correction.
Exception Correction
The defect has the owner, the accepted action and the result of the re-check.
Reference uses
The same proof can support multiple submissions if it really fits their scope.
Separation of review
The record of the controller and the independent audit assessment remain different.
Business context
- The basis of control and the reporting fact is not restored
- There is a lack of used rules, data, and judgement on the findings to the verification result. The team has to re-assemble the documents and explain what the subsequent corrections have changed.
- Less uncertain checks of transfer between teams
- The employee examining the client's question may wait for the conclusion of control, although he does not know what data is missing. The associated history of checks helps to pass a specific replenishment request to the responsible team. It is easier for the client to explain the required replenishment and for the bank to continue the service according to the verified solution.
Core features
- Designation of checks
- Version and criterion
- Origin of data
- Exception Correction
- Reference uses
- Separation of review
Key integrations
- Controlling Processes
- Control rule, data checked, result and exceptions were applied.
- Primary data sources
- The period, version and accepted correction were used.
- Reporting and document management
- The result was released and the basis used for the particular presentation.
- The course of exception correction
- Responsible action and re-check response.
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.
Work on restoring proof of control
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.
The active search for the required proof and the reconciliation for the same control scope is measured.
Disadvantages without an approved solution
5–25%Decreasing
This illustrative scenario assumes that 20-50% of missed actions can be identified through task and deadline tracking. That share is assumed to fall by 25-50%. Company data is needed to verify both the addressable share and the resulting change.
The agreed review counts gaps without an action taken or a reasonable follow-up decision.
Conditional calculation scenarios. The assumptions have not been validated against client measurements.
When this solution is relevant
- It is difficult to recreate what period of time the operations have been checked and what the control finding is based on.
- Recurrent non-conformities are recorded in the reports, but the work and responsibilities of removing them remain unclear.
Implementation requirements
Specialists responsible for automation of control confirm the criteria for verification, data sources and necessary evidence. Defines the rights of review and completion of exceptions by separating numerical checks from expert evaluation.
Further development options
- Additional controls, with each indicating the data being checked and evaluation criteria
- Re-use of the same proper proof for related submissions