Michael Cangemi quoted in ComplianceWeek article Nove 30, 2010 on What ever happened to continuous auditing? Here is the article: Click Here to Download the Article 

The themes of my recent EDPACS article and recent speeches on continuous monitoring  (both at www.canco.us) are that, while CM was born, to some degree, in the compliance/assurance areas as CA, and continuous controls monitoring,  CM continues to expand in all aspects of society: government, medicine, and business and the prime objective is to build it into operations to improve information integrity, controls, efficiency, overall reliability of systems, protection of brand value and to meet customer expectations.

 I was interviewed for the attached article exploring why the promise of CA has not gone mainstream with corporate America? The article states the idea of CA & CM is seductive: If you monitor and test mistakes can be found early, fraud can be discovered early etc. However, according to a PWC survey only 20% of companies consider themselves to have a mature grasp of data analytics technology and 10% consider themselves in the lowest tiers of data analytics and CA use. Therefore 70% are in the middle – i.e.: focused on and working on expanding the use of monitoring.

 My summary take away is twofold:

1-      There is a need for more information, coordinated leadership and assistance for companies to move forward with continuous monitoring.

2-      The potential for expanded monitoring based on rational investments and ROI potential over the long term are significantly positive.

 Barriers sited:

  • Cost and other priorities – the need with monitoring to invest time, money and resources, in this economy companies have put this on hold. One quote was that it is not expensive.
  • Getting access to transactional data, in some cases scattered throughout the company.
  • CA & CM identity crisis – confusion over monitoring performed independently by auditors CA and built in by business process owners CM – just needs clarification
  • Public accounting firms are “skeptical” about monitoring – therefore it needs to be driven by companies themselves. Accounting firms are focused on year end financial statement audits not business processes improvements.

 The article reports that companies that are serious about monitoring tend to be focused, not on (or not only on) compliance but on overall improvements to business process that result for continuous monitoring and auditing key aspects of the business. – “the compliance benefit is the icing on the cake.” This is my point exactly!!