How is Objective Evidence Admitted in an Internal Audit?

B

biboy2012

How is objective evidence admitted in an internal audit and who has the authority to admit it? Process owner (head or staffs) may object and explain why they think it should not be admitted. If this happens, who will make the decision? I don't know if my questions sound ludicrous, but it would mean so much if someone could help me shed light on this.

Thank you in advance.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
Competent auditors collective objective evidence to make determination of processes implementation and effectiveness. Nobody should be in a position to "admit", or not, objective evidence. This is not a trial where a judge can throw out evidence that was illegally obtained.

If the evidence is relevant to an audit, and someone is attempting to exercise undue pressure for it not to be used, they are undermining the whole process and the management representative must be informed of the situation. Nobody should be able to "bully" auditors to disregard evidence that is relevant to audit conclusions.
 

harry

Trusted Information Resource
The standards world would be dead if lawyers or wannabe lawyers get involved.

Don't over think and my experience is that an interpretation in line with its general usage in the business world is usually good enough (after all it is another standard meant for use in businesses). Another problem is that a lot of users such as auditors are line people with minimum exposure to the business world and hence the need for some guide for interpreting certain/particular terms.

With regards to the term 'objective' used as an adjective, it means:- "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering or representing facts"

See: "Guidance on some of the frequently used words found in the ISO 9000 family of standards"
 
Last edited:

somashekar

Leader
Admin
How is objective evidence admitted in an internal audit and who has the authority to admit it? Process owner (head or staffs) may object and explain why they think it should not be admitted. If this happens, who will make the decision? I don't know if my questions sound ludicrous, but it would mean so much if someone could help me shed light on this.

Thank you in advance.
People make organization...
People come in many types...
Some are ~~~
Those that feel that they alone make the organization and hide information for want of power.
Those that feel there are errors and hence hide information for want of security.

Who are you facing up in internal audit. Do they understand that the internal audit process and evidences referred there-off is taken as sample to assess the health of the system and not the health of the person ?
 
Last edited:

kuyakut

Involved In Discussions
You can call the attention of the Department head or the lead Auditor. Explain to them and let them decide.


Jhun GA
 

qusys

Trusted Information Resource
How is objective evidence admitted in an internal audit and who has the authority to admit it? Process owner (head or staffs) may object and explain why they think it should not be admitted. If this happens, who will make the decision? I don't know if my questions sound ludicrous, but it would mean so much if someone could help me shed light on this.

Thank you in advance.
You are talking about internal audit where the auditor shall also be independent.
The responsibility to decide is related to the trained auditor, that shall collect evidence in the audit as per the set audit criteria and objectives.
 

AndyN

Moved On
You are talking about internal audit where the auditor shall also be independent.
The responsibility to decide is related to the trained auditor, that shall collect evidence in the audit as per the set audit criteria and objectives.

Internal auditors have to be "objective and impartial" which isn't the same thing as "independent". Too many people interpret independence as being from outside the organization, which isn't always the best thing for an auditor. We must choose our words carefully.

The auditor will uncover facts about the implementation and these will help them to determine the situation. Facts speak for themselves. It's the auditors job to compile the facts in such a way that management understand what was found and what it represents. Does your auditor present the facts this way? Perhaps too much ISO speak is used when reporting - management don't often understand what this means.
 
Last edited:

RoxaneB

Change Agent and Data Storyteller
Super Moderator
Sidney Vianna said:
Competent auditors collective objective evidence to make determination of processes implementation and effectiveness. Nobody should be in a position to "admit", or not, objective evidence. This is not a trial where a judge can throw out evidence that was illegally obtained.

In light of an external audit I have occurring tomorrow, I suddenly find myself wanting to shout out "Objection, Your Honour!" in the middle of it.

Sidney Vianna said:
If the evidence is relevant to an audit, and someone is attempting to exercise undue pressure for it not to be used, they are undermining the whole process and the management representative must be informed of the situation. Nobody should be able to "bully" auditors to disregard evidence that is relevant to audit conclusions.

I must admit that while I'm not seeing bullying tactics, I'm seeing a lot of massaging of information and data and "let's not talk about that" suggestions being discussed as part of our prep for tomorrows external audit. I spent most of Friday twitching in a corner as we did pre-prep for tomorrow's audit. Yes...pre-prep. Today is prep. :frust:
 
B

biboy2012

Thank you all for the responses. I understand and agree with the general consensus.
 
Top Bottom