Redesigning the Internal Audit

Redesigning the Internal Audit
Author’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Code and Name
Professor’s Name
Date
Redesigning the Internal Audit
Monitoring and Reporting Compliance to Audit Recommendations
Audit managers and auditors made recommendations based on the redesigning of the internal audit process but they were not responsible for their compliance. Their primary objective was to complete audits and issue reports on time. Ashraful Hoda, an audit manager, was given the responsibility to oversee the compliance status and Sushila Santosh, his assistant, was to update statuses on the Excel spreadsheet (Machado et al., 2020). Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) monitored and reported compliances two times a year. Hoda reviewed and summarized the data from the Excel spreadsheet when audit reports were needed. On that note, the accuracy of the reports submitted was determined by who prepared them since the audit manager checked them briefly when they were required.
The internal audit reported recommendations statuses twice a year to the audit committee. Nevertheless, open recommendations were not closely followed due to several reasons. First, the internal department categorized the findings and recommendations into three, namely low, medium, and high. Auditors classified these recommendations based on their judgments. Risk ratings were not involved in the Excel spreadsheets (Machado et al., 2020). Second, a large corporation like BPCL would not lack numerous open recommendations. Third, BPCL was a highly reputable firm that operated professionally without any significant operational issues. Even the suggestions that were easy to adopt were left out. As one auditor explained, many recommendations appeared open due to ignorance, the lack of knowledge by auditees to whom they were supposed to report, and lethargy. At other times, these recommendations were insignificant.
Searching for Solutions
The head of the internal audit department and executive director, J...