Typical star­ting point of client

• Internal audits (compli­ance, FCPA, SOX etc.) increase in view of corrup­tion scan­dals, new guide­lines (e.g. phar­maceu­tical indu­stry) and awareness of image
• In many cases, this leads to an extreme imba­lance. The audi­tors work in big teams 100% focused on the audit, if necessary with external support, whereas the audi­tees have to handle the audit in addi­tion to their daily work
• As a result, the audi­tees are distracted from the main tasks and the number of “findings” increases due to lack of time to answer and docu­ment all questions comple­tely

Inno­va­tive approach

• Support of the audi­tees (e.g. state orga­ni­za­tions, BUs) during the audits in all three stages:
  1. Prepa­ra­tion (before the on-site audit)
     • Support with logi­stic plan­ning
     • Struc­tu­ring the data room, collec­ting docu­ments and infor­ma­tion
     • Prepa­ring involved employees, coaching with regard to the ideal beha­viour during audits
  2. Moderation/facilitation during on-site audit
     • By request, act as first contact person for all questions
     • Passing questions coming up during the audit on to the right contact person
     • Keeping minutes in order to be able to react appro­pria­tely to possible findings

  Follow-up

  • Review of the audit report and compa­ring it to own minutes; if necessary, discus­sion of findings (in all previous projects, some findings were argued away or their rating was improved)
  • Support of the manage­ment response by means of schedule/responsible person
  • Follo­wing up the agreed action plan and docu­men­ta­tion

Typical effect/result

• Cons­i­der­ably less workload and less distrac­tion for the audi­tees as well as a secure feeling on the part of the employees
• Strong reduc­tion of findings due to commu­ni­ca­tive misun­derstan­dings or missing docu­ments
• In total, cons­i­der­ably less or less grave findings