IIA Launches Global Review of ‘Three Lines of Defense’

Good to see the IIA Inc. taking a closer look at the TLOD-model. It is a classic, and it is helpful per se. However, it talks about defense only and it ignores communication between the silos. Enhancing the model towards integrated (combined) assurance and governance would be a huge step forward, possibly a quantum leap. Please see also my presentation at the ECIIA 2017 in Basel:

2017-09 Switzerland (Basel), European Conference of the Institute of Internal Auditors (ECIIA) SUCCESs – Simple, Unexpected, Concrete, Credible, Emotional, and Stories https://drrainerlenz.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/eciia-2017_dr-rainer-lenz_21-09-2017.pdf

https://global.theiia.org/news/Pages/IIA-Launches-Global-Review-of-Three-Lines-of-Defense.aspx

 

Advertisements

50 free online copies

Lenz, R., Sarens, G. & Jeppesen, K.K. (2018): In Search of a Measure of Effectiveness for Internal Audit Functions: An Institutional Perspective, EDPACS, 58:2, 1-36

50 free online copies <download>

ABSTRACT

Internal auditing (IA) effectiveness is still viewed, to large extent, as a “black box” in academic research. In this article, relevant empirical studies based on self-assessments of internal auditors and on other stakeholders’ perspectives are reviewed through an “effectiveness lens.” Major patterns are identified in the existing literature. This article reviews the empirical literature on IA effectiveness that has been published since the latest revision of the IA definition in 1999, using the perspectives of new institutional theory and institutional entrepreneurship as a framework, thereby recognizing the tension between institutional forces and the role of agency. In cases where isomorphic forces are in conflict with other organizational demands, chief auditing executives’ (CAE) agency can be a solution that enables local adaptation (institutional entrepreneurship). The ability to exploit fully the potential of agency is an opportunity for the CAE to tailor and advance the role of IA in its specific organizational context.

Regular access to this paper Lenz et al. (2018) @EDPACS

 

In September 2018, this thought-piece was published as a stand-alone paper in the Canadian journal EDPACS (part of the Taylor & Francis Group). Thank you Dan Swanson (Chief Editor).

This paper is part of my PhD book (2013). Thank you Professor Gerrit Sarens (Louvain School of Management, Belgium) and Professor Kim Klarskov Jeppesen (Copenhagen Business School, Denmark) for our discussions and your contributions.

Lenz, R. (2013), Insights into the effectiveness of internal audit: a multi-method and multi-perspective study, Université catholique de Louvain – Louvain School of Management Research Institute, Doctoral Thesis 01|2013

Access to my PhD book (2013)

 

 

In Search of a Measure of Effectiveness for Internal Audit Functions: An Institutional Perspective

[Sept 11, 2018]

Also paper 1 of my cumulative dissertation (from 2013) got published, eventually, as stand-alone paper in the Canadian journal EDPACS (part of Taylor & Francis). Thank you Dan Swanson (Chief Editor). Thank you Gerrit Sarens and Kim K. Jeppesen for your contributions.

 

Lenz, R., Sarens, G. & Jeppesen, K.K. (2018): In Search of a Measure of Effectiveness for Internal Audit Functions: An Institutional Perspective, EDPACS, 58:2, 1-36

ACCESS TO THIS PAPER

 

ABSTRACT

Internal auditing (IA) effectiveness is still viewed, to large extent, as a “black box” in academic research. In this article, relevant empirical studies based on self-assessments of internal auditors and on other stakeholders’ perspectives are reviewed through an “effectiveness lens.” Major patterns are identified in the existing literature. This article reviews the empirical literature on IA effectiveness that has been published since the latest revision of the IA definition in 1999, using the perspectives of new institutional theory and institutional entrepreneurship as a framework, thereby recognizing the tension between institutional forces and the role of agency. In cases where isomorphic forces are in conflict with other organizational demands, chief auditing executives’ (CAE) agency can be a solution that enables local adaptation (institutional entrepreneurship). The ability to exploit fully the potential of agency is an opportunity for the CAE to tailor and advance the role of IA in its specific organizational context.

In Search of a Measure of Effectiveness for Internal Audit Functions: An Institutional Perspective

Lenz, R., Sarens, G. & Jeppesen, K.K. (2018): In Search of a Measure of Effectiveness for Internal Audit Functions: An Institutional Perspective, EDPACS [Forthcoming]

 

Abstract

Internal auditing (IA) effectiveness is still viewed, to large extent, as a ‘black box’ in academic research. In this paper, relevant empirical studies based on self-assessments of internal auditors and on other stakeholders’ perspectives are reviewed through an ‘effectiveness lens’. Major patterns are identified in the existing literature, and the paper complements the work of Gramling et al. (2004), who examined the literature related to IA quality, largely from the viewpoint of external auditors. This paper reviews the empirical literature on IA effectiveness that has been published since the latest revision of the IA definition in 1999, using the perspectives of new institutional theory and institutional entrepreneurship (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; DiMaggio, 1988) as a framework, thereby recognizing the tension between institutional forces and the role of agency. In cases where isomorphic forces are in conflict with other organizational demands, chief auditing executives (CAE) agency can be a solution that enables local adaptation (institutional entrepreneurship). The ability to exploit fully the potential of agency is an opportunity for the CAE to tailor and advance the role of IA in its specific organizational context.

 

Key words: Internal auditing, effectiveness, new institutional theory, institutional entrepreneurship

Process Mining in der Revision: Ein Erfahrungsbericht

Lenz, R., Druckenmueller, J. & Nominacher, B. (2018): Process Mining in der Revision: Ein Erfahrungsbericht, Zeitschrift Interne Revision (ZIR), 4.18, 202-203

Lenz, Druckenmüller & Nominacher, ZIR_04.18_202-203

Process Mining in der Revision: Ein Erfahrungsbericht

[Info] Dieser Diskussionsbeitrag wird im August 2018 veröffentlicht:

Lenz, R., Druckenmueller, J. & Nominacher, B. (2018): Process Mining in der Revision: Ein Erfahrungsbericht, Zeitschrift Interne Revision (ZIR), August

 

Zusammenfassung:

Die Interne Revision sieht sich heute mit einem grundlegenden Wandel konfrontiert. Aufgrund der fortschreitenden Digitalisierung verändert sich die Unternehmenswelt zunehmend – und mit ihr die Themen und die Praxis der Revisionsprüfung. Berufsständische Vorgaben empfehlen die Anwendung von Big-Data-Analytics. Villeroy & Boch nutzt Process Mining, um eigene Geschäftsprozesse zu optimieren.

Revisionsabteilungen im Wandel

Objektiv, transparent, effizient – Process Mining in der internen Revision

Process Mining bei Villeroy & Boch

Die Interne Revision kann Pionier bei der Nutzung von Process Mining sein

Die Daten sprechen lassen

 

Autorenangaben

Dr. Rainer Lenz ist Leiter der Konzernrevision bei Villeroy & Boch

Jens Druckenmüller ist Manager in der Konzernrevision bei Villeroy & Boch

Bastian Nominacher ist Mitgründer und Co-CEO von Celonis

Möglichkeiten und Grenzen des Three-Lines-of-Defense-Model – Es ist Zeit für einen Paradigmenwechsel.

 

Möglichkeiten und Grenzen des Three-Lines-of-Defense-Model – Es ist Zeit für einen Paradigmenwechsel.

 

• 3LOD-Modell ist das gegenwärtige Paradigma
• „Man muß die Dinge so einfach wie möglich machen. Aber nicht einfacher.“ (Albert Einstein)
• Defensive und Offensive
• Silodenken vs. Zusammenarbeit (Aligned / Integrated Assurance)
• Faktor Mensch (Turf Protection)

 

Das “Three-Lines-of-Defense” Modell ist das gegenwärtig vorherrschende Paradigma im Kontext von „Effective Risk Management and Control”. Insbesondere in Zeiten gekennzeichnet von rasanten, disruptiven Veränderungen, man spricht auch von VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous), erscheint das Modell immer mehr als eine zu grobe Vereinfachung und weist in die Irre. Albert Einsteins Bonmot, „Man muss die Dinge so einfach wie möglich machen. Aber nicht einfacher“, trifft hier ins Schwarze. Das Modell hat lediglich die Defensive im Titel und zum Inhalt. Die Offensive kommt überhaupt nicht vor. Ein Designfehler. Die Offensive gewinnt Spiele, die Defensive gewinnt Meisterschaften, heißt es zurecht. Beides gehört zusammen. Risiko hat zwei Seiten. Im modernen Fußball sind Spieler offensiv, wenn die eigene Mannschaft den Ball hat, und defensiv, wenn der Gegner den Ball hat. Was bedeutet das für Organisationen? Das aktuelle Paradigma fördert Silodenken statt Zusammenarbeit und ignoriert den Faktor Mensch. Es ist Zeit für einen Paradigmenwechsel.