2002 NLPES Fall Training conference Notes
Effective Reviewing
Speaker: Tim Osterstock, Audit Manager, Office of the Utah Legislative Auditor General
Mr. Osterstock explained Utah's audit review process. Utah's process begins with the approval of initial documents and carries through the report writing process from report outlining through the draft review by the agency. The process also includes continuous work paper reviews. To help guide staff through the process, Utah's process includes several review control documents, such as the survey plan, the audit program, work papers, point sheets and summaries, and the report draft.
Even with a good review process in place, you will still encounter roadblocks. For example, if the review process is written in stone, it will not be as effective as it will not take into account the fact that audits are dynamic. A rigid review system fails to acknowledge differences among audits and can stall a report's progression through the process. Another roadblock is simply the different personalities involved. Staff may view the process as adversarial. Managers' differing styles can also result in conflict during the review process.
All in all, a good review process should include open communication, clearly established goals, and balanced reviewer involvement. The object is to make government better, not to release reports.
Speaker: Wade Melton, Staff Director, OPPAGA, Florida
Mr. Melton explained OPPAGA's audit review process, which contains several steps designed to streamline the process. OPPAGA's Team Support Council (TSC) works with the audit teams throughout the audit process, including report writing, and is considered part of the front end of the process. The audit teams are required to meet with the TSC at critical project milestones. The first meeting, known as the project kick-off meeting, is the most important. At this meeting the audit team provides a high level briefing describing the project area and the potential issues. Within 24 hours of the meeting, the team produces a one to two page memo of understanding, stating what the team agreed to do. The team is not to spend a lot of time on this memo and it is not something that should be thoroughly edited. Mr. Melton added that starting on day one of a project, the audit team is thinking about the report and what it will look like. After the completion of preliminary survey, the audit team meets with the TSC for a scope and methodology meeting to discuss proposed issues. Again, after the meeting, the team prepares a memo of understanding. However, the team does not prepare a detailed audit plan. This helps to speed up the process. About two thirds of the way through the audit, the team holds its final meeting with the TSC to discuss the message and what they think the report will look like.
The back end of the process involves quality assurance reviews by OPPAGA's Quality Assurance Section. Reviewers look for: message, consistency and logic, relevance, clarity, sufficiency of evidence, and accuracy. Basically, these reviewers are cold-readers and bring objectivity to the process. The final reviews of a report will focus on editing for grammar and format. While these reviews are not based on content, the reviewers will provide comments on content if something does not make sense.
Mr. Melton discussed the importance of maintaining open communication throughout the audit process, regardless of which audit shop you work for. Team members need to get along and not be critical of the feedback they receive. On the other hand, managers, directors, and other reviewers need to be open with their comments and professional when delivering their comments. Also, it's important to keep assessing how new information fits into your message.
|
