<snip>
If not, I dare challenge anyone here to explain in a very objective manner how they would assess the effectiveness of an internal audit process. It is a complex, multi-faceted assessment which escapes scrutiny in most third-party audits, with VERY FEW exceptions.
If not, I dare challenge anyone here to explain in a very objective manner how they would assess the effectiveness of an internal audit process. It is a complex, multi-faceted assessment which escapes scrutiny in most third-party audits, with VERY FEW exceptions.
What the OP is proposing, however, is the opposite--a decision has been made that the process is ineffective without any real evidence that it is in fact ineffective. The audited company is put in the position of having the burden of proof of innocence, when the burden should always be on the auditor to provide convincing evidence of guilt.
