Too often these audits Reunion Email Lists only one goal: to factualize as much as possible a situation and allow the auditability of the audit itself to convince all the stakeholders of the quality of the analysis and indirectly of the action plan. since the starting point is “a good analysis necessarily leads to a relevant action plan” via beautiful cause and effect relationships: Dysfunction -> Improvement action. It also happens that this desire to factualize is solely motivated by the need for a “dependent” audit aimed at discrediting a manager or a leader. This is not the most common case but it does happen and in this case there may be pressure on the

auditor to direct his sources and his analyzes. These audits are reassuring because they are often based on known benchmarks and control points that are serious among insiders (for example on IS organizations or IS projects, it can be a sesame for an auditor to use benchmarks. ISO (ISO 20,000, ISO 9,000, ISO 27,000,…) or ISACA (Cobit,….). It is in fact very complex to use these repositories in a relevant way. There is a great temptation to apply them without understanding them and to draw conclusions disconnected from the context (for example disconnected from the sectoral context of the organization).

The Advantages And Disadvantages

In short, we do not use the same repository in the same way in a world bank and in an agro-food SME of 20 people. The other drawback is that they give the illusion that it suffices to master a little the reference system to get by and this can lead to a mission entrusted to a young boy in a suit who will ask questions he does not know. not understand to people who do not understand them either. But he will have followed the process, will generally have answers (mostly worthless) therefore enough to grind to come out of conclusions (mostly off the mark). Sometimes the conclusions are automated, more than to add a few

Reunion-Email-List

comments by the mission director. Casimir a big fan of Gloubi-Boulga of audit conclusions The other drawback of these audits is that they excessively favor sampling and traceability, like accounting audits. As much on an accounting audit we can mathematically be reassured about the statistical performance of the sample, this seems impossible to me for an organizational audit which handles financial objects (a little) but especially non-financial (human, processes, operating methods, axes strategic, …) The postulate “A good analysis is the key to a relevant action plan”, leads audits in a mechanistic Problem -> Action approach, which ultimately makes their implementation inefficient and ineffective. There can be many micro-actions for

Why Would I Accept To Change

which the audit only shows the impacts on the dysfunctions but without the side effects (this is normal, it is not the objective of the audit). There may be actions which are inconsistent, which neutralize each other, or whose combined effect is counterproductive. The principles of global actions are absent, only the prioritization of effects and / or “project management” type links (start to end links for example) are often used to provide an overall vision of the plan -> this is rarely sufficient to mobilize an organization ISLEAN only does value-added diagnostics Of course we also use the term “organizational audit”, but we never fall

for them. Our diagnoses are always auditable and we always cross our sources. Sometimes we sacrifice the formalization of this traceability and therefore the practicality of this traceability, but it is always possible. We never use a repository just because “it sounds serious”. If our client imposes it on us and the repository seems inappropriate to us, we only use what is relevant in the repository and we explain why. If the audit framework is obscure (which often happens) we explain each axis, each control point with a vocabulary adapted to all our interlocutors. I still remember one of my first audit missions where the main auditor

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.