Here are some thoughtful – and sometimes funny –  reader responses to my recent blog post on ‘Descriptive Performance Audits?’.

In that post, I asked my readers, “What do you think of descriptive performance audits?” Descriptive performance audits do not fit the traditional definition of an audit because they don’t use audit criteria.

Names and other identifying information have been removed, but there’s still plenty left for your reading enjoyment.

Seinfeld: An example of descriptive performance audits

Reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Peterman buys Kramer’s stories for his autobiography. Elaine complains to Jerry that some of Kramer’s stories aren’t even stories. One of them is just a list of things in his apartment. I guess that would qualify as a descriptive audit. ☺

GAO setting auditors up for failure?

If enough practitioners refuse to offer the service of a Descriptive Performance Audit based on the inconsistencies, wouldn’t the GAO be forced to restate the guidance? It actually sounds to me like we’re either being set up to fail or they were setting the stage to be able to justify incompetence in Government. Auditors could do an engagement letter with enough legalese to infer the client is engaging us to evaluate performance based on nothing by doing nothing and providing no opinion!!

Agree to disagree

I always read your blogs; keeps me thinking or as H. Poirot would say, “exercising the little grey cells.” Looks like we found your soapbox (or one of them.) I have many – auditor independence and not calling the audited entity/management the ‘client’ – are just a couple. I see your point, and it’s likely we will agree to disagree on this one. I think a descriptive performance audit provides information to decision-makers and the public and contributes to public transparency. I think audits can be useful even without recommendations.

The thing is we don’t consult with or for management or perform non-audit services for management as I think that is a BIG independence issue. The primary audience for the few descriptive performance audits we have done (because we thought it was useful/important information) are elected officials and the public and also provides management with information as well.

Maybe the question is what should we call a project and resulting report that follows the standards for how the work is conducted, supervised/reviewed (QA), uses appropriate/sufficient evidence, and is reported? It does not fit any of the descriptions of a non-audit service. I agree that some audit functions could get sloppy with this type of project, but that’s why you use the standards to guide the work on this type of project and they are the exception based on professional judgement. Perhaps I have rose colored glasses on this topic because we have had success with descriptive audits.

What does this mean for our independence?

It is a little strange and concerning to me. What will this mean for our objectivity, independence standards? If our “…standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives,” it seems like our “objectives” will become more like criteria-less “subjectives”. If our “subjectives” become the basis of our “findings and conclusions”, then we get to individually (or as a collective audit group) decide what’s right or wrong (self-imposed, and perhaps unspoken, criteria).

If rational criteria don’t matter… if established science, biology, psychology, etc. don’t matter… if the basic human condition, origins, and ends don’t matter… then, doesn’t it become a matter of who has the most influential, most appealing, most loud, or (eventually) most forceful voice? Doesn’t it become another gentle nudge toward socialism… communism – the long-established enemy of real human compassion and progress and flourishing unto eternity?

I’ve been gradually seeing more and more through a spiritual (eternal) lens… through which so much of the weird stuff happening in the world makes so much more sense. Why has the Government Accountability Office refused to ensure accountability over the billions of dollars going to Ukraine? It makes a little more sense when we look at the unsettling NATO, US, Ukrainian, and Russian history… and even more sense when through a spiritual lens. But don’t get me started on all of the crazy things in this “new world order” that require a spiritual lens…. I have to get back to my “real” job.

Any idea where the IIA standards stand these days? Are they heading in the same direction as GAGAS? Or might it be a good time to switch over to them? Thanks again… I appreciate you sharing your nerdy thoughts. Please keep sharing!

Thank you, readers

I always enjoy reader responses to my blog posts, so please keep them coming! You’re always welcome to join me and share your insights and humor in my live courses, too. I love working with you. Audit on!