1 / 23

Riksrevisionen The Swedish National Audit Office

Riksrevisionen The Swedish National Audit Office. Quality Assurance Model. A new agency under Parliament. Launch 1 July 2003 Independent agency responsible for examining all government operations Two previous audit agencies closed. Managed by three Auditors General.

blumberg
Download Presentation

Riksrevisionen The Swedish National Audit Office

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. RiksrevisionenThe Swedish National Audit Office Quality Assurance Model

  2. A new agency under Parliament • Launch 1 July 2003 • Independent agency responsible for examining all government operations • Two previous audit agencies closed

  3. Managed by three Auditors General • The three Auditors General decide jointly on the focus of activities, as reflected in the audit plan • Each Auditor General decides in his/hers area of responsibility, what to audit and which conclusions to draw from the audit

  4. Objectives – quality assurance model • Cover the audit process • Integrated part of the audit • Basis for learning and improvement • Support the audit teams

  5. Basic principles • Head of Department - overall responsibility for quality assurance • Quality reviewers - second opinion to HD

  6. Head of Department Linguist Milestones Pre-study Half-way review First draft Draft to auditee Language control Independent quality reviewers

  7. Quality Assurance Board • Auditors but no HD • Fourteen persons appointed by HD • Instruction decided by AG • Guidelines for review based upon AG:s criteria for performance audits • Regular meetings • Reports general experiences to HD • Supports Quality Division

  8. Quality Reviewers • Work in pairs • Meetings with audit team and HD • Present a written opinion at each milestone • Report to HD

  9. Pre-study: Main focus • Audit Problem • Audit Criteria • Audit Questions • Methods • Government responsibility • Timing

  10. ”Half way rewiew”: Main focus • Need of changes in methods • Problems which may have occured • Preliminary conclusions • Structure of the report (synopsis)

  11. Draft to auditee: Main focus • Problem outlined • Presentation of methods • Relevance of Audit Criteria • Answers to Audit Questions • Conclusions and recommendations • Overall readability

  12. Experiences from the Quality Divisions point of view (+) • The model appreciated by reviewers and audit teams (fruitful discussions, mutual learning) • Good insight in audit work from QAB written opinions, reports and meetings. • Helps Quality Division to identify shortcomings in process and audit reports.

  13. Experiences from the Quality Divisions point of view (-) • Unclear division in responsibility for quality in audit work between HD and quality reviewers. • The model is not always complied to (premature material to reviewers etc.)

  14. What does it cost? • Quality assurance twoo weeks/project: (80 hours) • A standard project: 2300 hours (pre-study+main study) • Quality assurance: 3,5% • In monetary terms: Quality assurance 9500 Euros out of 270 000.

  15. Do we get reports with higher quality? • The quality reviewers detect mistakes and shortcomings which are rectified • The quality model in itself highlights quality issues

  16. Good practises • Quality control during the process with special emphasis on the initial phase (doing right from the beginning) • Not only control, but also support • The element of ”peer-review”

  17. Post Audit Quality Assurance • External review of performance audit reports • Following up impact of reports • QAB follow-up report twice a year • External evaluation of quality assurance system • Quality and Methods Division current monitoring of quality in reports

  18. External review of performance audit reports • Review made by Scientific Advisory Council • Review based on criteria set by RiR • Individual member choses which reports to review • Discussion at meetings three or four times a year

  19. Following up impact of reports • Done by Information Division • What has the Government done? • Politicians view • Riksrevisionen in the media

  20. QAB follow-up report • General experiences of quality assurance • Functionality of the quality model • The audit process • Quality of reports

  21. External evaluation of quality assurance model • Evaluation decided by AGs when the model was decided. At the moment evaluators are procured

  22. Quality and Methods Division monitoring of quality in reports • Basis for: • - improvement of quality model • - training for performance auditors • - seminars on methods and quality

More Related