• Home
  • About
  • Subscribe
  • Conference
  • Events Calendar
  • Webcast151
  • MOTB
  • Log In
  • Register

Room 151

  • 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

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...

  • Tough choices facing central bankers Tough choices facing central bankers 24 Sep, 2013
  • A stubborn lack of purpose A stubborn lack of purpose 27 Jun, 2012
  • Chris Buss: CIPFA’s resilience index and the potential for unintended consequences Chris Buss: CIPFA’s resilience index and the potential for unintended consequences 29 Aug, 2018
  • Lessons for 2016: Internal borrowing, interest rate risks & revising MRPs Lessons for 2016: Internal borrowing, interest rate risks & revising MRPs 17 Dec, 2015

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • Register to become a Room151 user

  • Latest tweets

    Room151 12 hours ago

    How can local government ‘build back better’?: Beverley Gower-Jones looks at the options for driving small business entrepreneurship in clean technologies. Innovation is essential for local authorities to save money and reduce emissions, it is the… dlvr.it/RtT3nS pic.twitter.com/bSMB6OG70t

    Room151 15 hours ago

    Helen Randall: Spelthorne report places spotlight on ‘controls’: Fresh criticism of Spelthorne Council raises the question of what “good” controls look like when negotiating a property deal. Spelthorne Council’s continuing debacle over property… dlvr.it/RtSPhy pic.twitter.com/9uCOJgBcH6

    Room151 15 hours ago

    Step-out strategies: Hitting the sweet spot between liquidity and ultra-short duration: Sponsored article: Jemma Clee describes how an ultra-short duration strategy can help local authorities enhance returns. Despite the expectation of a low, and… dlvr.it/RtSPZb pic.twitter.com/pdXPpv5lcN

    Room151 2 days ago

    What role will climate change have on the pricing of government bonds?: Sponsored article: Kerry Duffain finds that “vulnerability and resilience to climate change” have a significant impact on the cost of government borrowing. Ardea Investment… dlvr.it/RtNKv7 pic.twitter.com/wDjT31x4Yt

    Room151 2 days ago

    ESGenius: Slashing emissions will fuel green growth for decades: Sponsored article: Velislava Dimitrova argues that a big enough investment could mean transition to a low, or no, carbon economy can become a reality. The world needs to slash carbon[...] dlvr.it/RtKZJp pic.twitter.com/cd8S3ijERl

    Room151 2 days ago

    Prudential code: “Not perfect, but its heart is in the right place”: The new Prudential Code offers revised rules for borrowing. Nikki Bishop is sceptical it will work while Gary Fielding offers his support. Nikki Bishop I have been asked to give[...] dlvr.it/RtKZFh pic.twitter.com/OriN28lXcb

    Room151 3 days ago

    Tremendous report from @MarkSandford3 citing @room_151 no fewer than six times (despite what the @lgcplus fact checking/counting dept might tell you) #localgov commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-brief… 1/5

    Room151 1 week ago

    Dan Bates: Capitalisation directions are not the only tool for rebuilding finances: Dan Bates argues deep seated problems are contributing to a rush for capitalisation directions. For some time now we have been reading that a number of councils are in… dlvr.it/RspKff pic.twitter.com/xRRsgVim9u

    Room151 2 weeks ago

    Is local government funding “broken”?: Andrew Hardingham looks at the underlying issues that caused more than a third of respondents in the Room151/CCLA treasury survey to say that the funding system for local govenrment is[...] dlvr.it/RsYhsg pic.twitter.com/plNp7Ayys6

  • Categories

    • 151 News
    • Agent 151
    • Blogs
    • Chris Buss
    • Cllr John Clancy
    • Dan Bates
    • David Crum
    • David Green
    • Development
    • Forum
    • Funding
    • Graham Liddell
    • Ian O'Donnell
    • Interviews
    • Jackie Shute
    • James Bevan
    • Jobs
    • LGPSi
    • Mark Finnegan
    • Recent Posts
    • Resources
    • Richard Harbord
    • Stephen Fitzgerald
    • Stephen Sheen
    • Steve Bishop
    • Technical
    • Treasury
    • Uncategorized
  • Archives

    • 2021
    • 2020
    • 2019
    • 2018
    • 2017
    • 2016
    • 2015
    • 2014
    • 2013
    • 2012
    • 2011
  • 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 2021 Room 151. Typegrid Theme by WPBandit.