no 1 riksrevisionen the swedish national audit office quality assurance model
TRANSCRIPT
no 1
RiksrevisionenThe Swedish National Audit
Office
Quality Assurance Model
no 2
A new agency under ParliamentLaunch 1 July 2003
Independent agency responsible for
examining all government
operations
Two previous audit agencies closed
no 3
Managed by three Auditors General
The three Auditors General decide jointly on the focus of activities, as reflected in the audit plan
Each Auditor General decides in his/hers area of responsibility, what to audit and which conclusions to draw from the audit
no 4
no 5
Objectives – quality assurance model• Cover the audit process
• Integrated part of the audit
• Basis for learning and improvement
• Support the audit teams
no 6
Basic principles
• Head of Department - overall responsibility for quality assurance
• Quality reviewers - second opinion to HD
no 7
Milestones
Pre-study Half-way review First draft Draft to auditee Language control
Independent quality reviewers
Head of Department Linguist
no 8
Quality Assurance Board• Auditors but no HD
• Fourteen persons appointed by HD
• Instruction decided by AG
• Guidelines for review based upon AG:s criteria for performance audits
• Regular meetings
• Reports general experiences to HD
• Supports Quality Division
no 9
Quality Reviewers
• Work in pairs
• Meetings with audit team and HD
• Present a written opinion at each milestone
• Report to HD
no 10
Pre-study: Main focus
• Audit Problem
• Audit Criteria
• Audit Questions
• Methods
• Government responsibility
• Timing
no 11
”Half way rewiew”: Main focus• Need of changes in methods
• Problems which may have occured
• Preliminary conclusions
• Structure of the report (synopsis)
no 12
Draft to auditee: Main focus• Problem outlined
• Presentation of methods
• Relevance of Audit Criteria
• Answers to Audit Questions
• Conclusions and recommendations
• Overall readability
no 13
Experiences from the Quality Divisions point of view (+)
• The model appreciated by reviewers and audit teams (fruitful discussions, mutual learning)
• Good insight in audit work from QAB written opinions, reports and meetings.
• Helps Quality Division to identify shortcomings in process and audit reports.
no 14
Experiences from the Quality Divisions point of view (-)
• Unclear division in responsibility for quality in audit work between HD and quality reviewers.
• The model is not always complied to (premature material to reviewers etc.)
no 15
What does it cost?
• Quality assurance twoo weeks/project: (80 hours)
• A standard project: 2300 hours (pre-study+main study)
• Quality assurance: 3,5%
• In monetary terms: Quality assurance 9500 Euros out of 270 000.
no 16
Do we get reports with higher quality?
• The quality reviewers detect mistakes and shortcomings which are rectified
• The quality model in itself highlights quality issues
no 17
Good practises
• Quality control during the process with special emphasis on the initial phase (doing right from the beginning)
• Not only control, but also support
• The element of ”peer-review”
no 18
Post Audit Quality Assurance• External review of performance
audit reports
• Following up impact of reports
• QAB follow-up report twice a year
• External evaluation of quality assurance system
• Quality and Methods Division current monitoring of quality in reports
no 19
External review of performance audit reports• Review made by Scientific
Advisory Council
• Review based on criteria set by RiR
• Individual member choses which reports to review
• Discussion at meetings three or four times a year
no 20
Following up impact of reports• Done by Information Division
• What has the Government done?
• Politicians view
• Riksrevisionen in the media
no 21
QAB follow-up report
• General experiences of quality assurance
• Functionality of the quality model
• The audit process
• Quality of reports
no 22
External evaluation of quality assurance model• Evaluation decided by AGs
when the model was decided. At the moment evaluators are procured
no 23
Quality and Methods Division monitoring of quality in reports• Basis for:
• - improvement of quality model
• - training for performance auditors
• - seminars on methods and quality