• Home
  • About
  • Subscribe
  • LATIF
  • Conferences
  • Dashboard
  • Edit My Profile
  • Log In
  • Logout
  • Register
  • Edit this post

Room 151

  • 151 BRIEF

    What's New?

  • Underfunded social care reforms could ‘exacerbate workforce pressures’

    June 27, 2022

  • Nottingham City Council leader labels proposed intervention as “disappointing”

    June 27, 2022

  • Government preparing to intervene in Nottingham City Council

    June 23, 2022

  • Low earners at Surrey County Council receive 7.85% pay increase

    June 23, 2022

  • UK Infrastructure Bank launches plan to deploy £22bn of investment

    June 23, 2022

  • LGA: councils facing service and job cuts due to National Living Wage increase

    June 21, 2022

  • Treasury
  • Technical
  • Funding
  • Resources
  • LGPS
  • Development
  • 151 News
  • Blogs
    • David Green
    • Agent 151
    • Dan Bates
    • Richard Harbord
    • Stephen Sheen
    • James Bevan
    • Steve Bishop
    • Cllr John Clancy
    • David Crum
    • Graham Liddell
    • Ian O’Donnell
    • Jackie Shute
  • Interviews
  • Briefs

Graham Liddell: internal audit’s snog, marry, avoid conundrum

0
  • by Graham Liddell
  • in Blogs · Graham Liddell · Technical
  • — 19 Apr, 2016

Graham Liddell considers the relative merits of delivering internal audit services in-house, outsourced or through a shared service.

Graham Liddell

Graham Liddell

Your head of audit leads an effective in-house audit team that delivers a valuable service.

But the internal audit function is coming under increasing budgetary pressure and you want to avoid the trap of saving costs by simply trimming audit days (the internal audit equivalent of salami slicing).

It’s time to revisit the options for how internal audit is delivered. Should you:

  • retain internal audit 100% in-house?
  • outsource part or all of the function?
  • join forces with other local authorities to develop a shared service?

Each has its attractions and its supporters and no doubt you will want to carry out a full business case, ideally with a sophisticated scoring system.

But ultimately it will all come down to what you want out of your internal audit service and the sort of relationship you looking for.

In which case there is only one way to categorise the options: which would you snog, which would you marry and which would you avoid? Here are my (very personal) views.

Retaining 100% in-house

In-house audit teams offer a local authority some great benefits. Typically audit staff are highly experienced with a deep knowledge of (and commitment to) your local authority. They are seen round and about, are trusted by officers and members and can be asked to investigate areas of concern at a moment’s notice.

But in the current climate of decreasing budgets and increasingly sophisticated use of IT, the limitations of the 100% in-house teams are beginning to show.

Audit risks and audit techniques are changing rapidly and it’s hard for in-house teams, with limited economies of scale and little experience of other organisations, to keep pace.

Furthermore, as in-house audit teams become smaller, they are less able to cope with changes in demand or the loss of key members of staff. They are often seen as less attractive places to work and struggle to retain or attract quality professionals.

So should you snog, marry or avoid an in-house team? Whatever your relationships you have had with in-house audit teams in the past, it’s time to face up to the facts. The 100% in-house audit team is no longer as attractive as it once was: AVOID.

Outsourcing part or all of the function

In many ways internal audit is a strong candidate for outsourcing. There is a highly regulated and competitive market with some really big hitters keen to get your business.

If all goes well you could end up with an internal audit team that can cope with fluctuations in demand, has specialist knowledge combined with experience from a wide range of other clients. And the stiff competition from the market will help keep costs down.

The downside is that you will lose the deep knowledge of your local authority built up by your in-house team.

And despite the glossiness and smoothness of the winning pitch, you might end up being disappointed with the quality, especially if your new internal audit provider has cut its margins to the bone.

Can you see yourself in a relationship with an outsourced provider of internal audit services?

At first glance the private sector is enticing but there are real disadvantages in entering a long-term monogamous relationship.

By all means, bring in the private sector for specific pieces of work (like many other internal audit teams, we buy in IT audit services) but be wary of going all the way. If the choice is snog, marry or avoid, then the answer is snog.

Develop a shared service

A shared service between two or more local authorities can offer the best of both worlds.

Get it right and you can retain auditors with a deep knowledge of your authority, supplemented with experience of what happens elsewhere, your audit team can benefit from the economies of scale and resilience from being part of a larger audit grouping and you can provide opportunities for staff to develop and progress their careers.

However, developing a shared service is not straight-forward. It takes time and hard work and, despite the obvious opportunities for staff, is inevitably unsettling.

Much will depend on developing strong working relationships between the heads of audit at each local authority, putting robust project management in place and engaging with staff.

So, how do you feel about a shared internal audit service: snog, marry or avoid?

By now, you will have spotted that I have declared my hand. For me, developing a shared internal audit service across two or more local authorities is by far the best option.

But it will only turn out well if you can work together and are prepared to put in the effort. In other words: find the right partner, commit and marry.

Graham Liddell is Head of Internal Audit at Brighton & Hove City Council.

Get the Room151 Newsletter

Share

You may also like...

  • Spending review set to push up council tax 18th Oct, 2021
  • Making a clean, green future a reality 15th Dec, 2021
  • Delivering net zero: Strathclyde plunges into Clean Growth Fund 21st Jul, 2021
  • Making sense of climate risk reporting for LGPS 2nd Mar, 2021

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • 151 BRIEFS – WHAT’s NEW?

    • Underfunded social care reforms could ‘exacerbate workforce pressures’
    • Nottingham City Council leader labels proposed intervention as “disappointing”
    • Government preparing to intervene in Nottingham City Council
    • Low earners at Surrey County Council receive 7.85% pay increase
    • UK Infrastructure Bank launches plan to deploy £22bn of investment
  • Room151’s LGPS Roundtables

    Biodiversity
    Valuations & Risk
    LGPS Women

  • Room151’s LGPS Roundtables

    Biodiversity
    LGPS Women
    Valuations & Risk
  • Latest tweets

    Room151 4 days ago

    Conrad Hall: ‘more sophisticated’ regulation needed for local government: The chair of the CIPFA/LASAAC Code Board has questioned the sophistication of financial regulation in local government and the continuing focus of the Department for Levelling Up,… dlvr.it/SSnPBV pic.twitter.com/G5d7JCWF8c

    Room151 6 days ago

    Slough Council approves plans to restructure finance department: Slough Borough Council has approved plans to restructure its finance department to enhance capacity and capability and to address a “significant weakness” in the function. The local… dlvr.it/SSf8DG pic.twitter.com/l5lmyHmkBg

    Room151 7 days ago

    Job Alert: Various Finance Roles: lnkd.in/eRKRvhJb pic.twitter.com/KkBrjXxAYD

    Room151 1 week ago

    MRP on capital loans: a step in the right direction: David Green says the latest government proposals on Minimum Revenue Provision should be welcomed by local authorities. There are still some unintended consequences, but the suggested approach for… dlvr.it/SSZ7JK pic.twitter.com/M1W9qVgYWN

    Room151 1 week ago

    MRP U-turn welcomed but ‘unintended consequences remain’: Local authority finance directors and treasury advisers have welcomed the government’s revised Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) proposals, while pointing out that some unintended consequences still… dlvr.it/SSWvY0 pic.twitter.com/sGglpVNFs3

    Room151 1 week ago

    Mike O’Donnell: ‘progress on LGPS asset pooling needs to go further and faster’: The CEO at the London CIV pension pool has called for progress on pooling the assets of the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) to accelerate. Mike O’Donnell told… dlvr.it/SSWvWV pic.twitter.com/rE1NjbMCCq

    Room151 1 week ago

    Mike O’Donnell: ‘progress on LGPS asset pooling needs to go further and faster’:The CEO at the London CIV pension pool has called for progress on pooling the assets of the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) to accelerate. @London_CIV room151.co.uk/local-governme…

    Room151 1 week ago

    JOB ALERT: Watford Borough Council & Three Rivers District Council, various roles:       Technical Accountant Career Grade: We are looking for a motivated team player to join our Finance Department. The post holder will gain experience across these… dlvr.it/SSWN8f

    Room151 1 week ago

    Inflation and the LGPS: Local government pension payments will rise significantly next year based on the inflation rate this September. William Bourne discusses whether funds should be looking for some protection by turning to[...] dlvr.it/SSVK9x pic.twitter.com/7zH9OkRo1d

  • Register to become a Room151 user

  • Previous story News Round-Up: Funding guidance, Council tax powers, Brexit damage, Estate sharing funds, Edinburgh PFI payments
  • Next story James Bevan: deflation expectations

© Copyright 2022 Room 151. Typegrid Theme by WPBandit.

0 shares
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies from this website.OK