If the skills and competencies are not present within the internal audit activity to complete an ad-hoc assurance engagement, which of the following is an acceptable resolution?

Question

Options

• APolitely decline the engagement due to a lack of qualified staff available at the time.
• BComplete the engagement as requested, with the best of the current staffs abilities.
• CConsider using employees from other departments in the organization on the audit team.
• DChange the scope of the testing to ensure that only available staff proficiencies are used

• A
  14% (7)
• B
  6% (3)
• C
  78% (38)
• D
  2% (1)

Explanation

Option C is correct because IIA Standard 1210 (Proficiency) requires the internal audit activity to possess or obtain the knowledge, skills, and competencies needed to perform its responsibilities - and one acceptable way to obtain missing competencies is by leveraging qualified staff from other parts of the organization as guest auditors or co-sourcing partners.

• A is wrong because simply declining is not the appropriate resolution; the IIA standards expect the CAE to find a way to fulfill the engagement, not abandon it.
• B is wrong because proceeding without the required competencies violates the proficiency standard and risks issuing an unreliable opinion, which could harm the organization.
• D is wrong because arbitrarily narrowing scope to match staff limitations - rather than matching staff to scope - compromises the integrity and purpose of the engagement.

Memory tip: Think of it as "borrow before you bail" - when internal talent is lacking, borrow qualified people from elsewhere in the organization (or use external resources) before declining or compromising the engagement.

No community discussion yet for this question.