As I re-examine my earlier comments, I detect my frustration with ANYONE, regular auditor or "value-added" auditor, coming in to a place of business, ostensibly on one mission (paid by the man hour), who casually shoots from the hip and says (by implication), "Oh by the way, although your operations meet the Standard I am paid to audit, I notice your business processes aren't up to industry benchmarks that I am aware of because I go into so many businesses and pay attention to what makes them profitable in addition to checking their adherence to the Standard. In fact, I am so knowledgeable about what makes a business more efficient and profitable that I can assess your business or any business as I casually pass from department to department and carry on my Standard audit in just a day or two on your premises. Also, you should know that if I didn't find any room for improvement, you overpaid for your audit because you didn't get any value added."
Does this view of mine mean NO auditor has the experience, skill, and ethics to spot potential opportunities for increased business efficiency as he goes through an audit? The ethics part means he can make a value judgment to avoid giving away another organization's hard won trade secrets. Even then, I would expect the opportunity for improvement in a non-Standard aspect of business to be recognized by a mere fluke during the short time an auditor is on the premises.
I know many wonderful, ethical accounting auditors from years of experience in dealing with financial matters of public and nonpublic companies. Every single one of my acquaintances agrees that a "Standard" audit of an organization would probably not catch fraud by a high ranking insider, nor would it pinpoint the subtle incompetencies which cause some organizations to fail. They all agree that detecting the fraud or incompetency requires a much deeper and more thorough analysis in a process known as "forensic accounting."
Perhaps I have become too cynical after exposure to so many major and minor frauds and incompetencies when looking at potential targets for my investment banking business. However experienced and cynical I may have been, however, I would never have been able to ferret out either fraud or pure incompetency within three days unless that was the ONLY thing I was looking for. With an entrenched system of incompetency, internal taboos constrain others in the organization to help hide the incompetency like some families help hide one member's alcoholism from the outsiders, making excuses for absences and minor car accidents. Fraud, by its very nature, is something hidden and secret from outsiders as well as most insiders.
Bottom line:
Let's agree the term "value added auditing" is merely a marketing ploy to set an auditing organization apart from its competitors to gain more business at a higher price. If an organization hires such an auditor and is willing to pay more, is that any different from the consumer who chooses to buy a brand name appliance at full retail from a flagship department store rather than at a discount from Best Buy?
I don't intend to belittle an auditor trying to push his company's marketing strategy, but that doesn't mean that I can't tell folks that the real difference between one audit and another doesn't hinge on the marketing strategy of the registrar, but on the experience and competence of the individual on-site auditor.
