Testimonial Evidence
Testimonial evidence is obtained by conducting interviews, focus groups, surveys, or written assertions. Testimonial evidence is particularly useful in audits of oversight to document the less tangible aspects of the oversight environment: soft controls, organizational culture, leadership, and oversight body dynamics.
Testimonial evidence is often very useful to:
- confirm information obtained from other sources of evidence (thus strengthening the support for audit observations and conclusions),
- confirm the absence of something that was expected to exist,
- place documentary evidence in its proper context, and
- open new leads in an audit and identify further sources of evidence.
When auditing boards of directors or other oversight bodies, notes of interviews with oversight body members may constitute an important source of evidence. Auditors can use the notes as support for their observations, but should avoid putting too much reliance on interviews alone. Whenever possible, documentary, physical, or analytical evidence should also be obtained to support key observations.
Special considerations for interviews with board members
Conducting interviews with only one director or governor at a time is key to creating a safe environment. Using focus group or group interviews would likely not provide complete information for audit teams since directors and governors might not feel comfortable enough in such settings to express some of their views on the effectiveness of the oversight in the organization they govern. Having an auditor with a seniority level matching the interviewee’s conduct the interview is another way to foster a climate of trust.
The experience of auditors suggests that, when planning audit procedures for examining a board of directors or a governing council, auditors should consider planning sufficient time and resources to interview all current directors or governors, as well as previous ones who were active during the period covered by the audit. Limiting the interviews to the chair and key members of a board or a council creates a risk that auditors may remain unaware of significant facts. Contradictory views and different perspectives can often be obtained from the “backbencher” members of boards and councils. By interviewing all directors or governors, auditors can ensure that they obtain and consider as many points of view as possible and so develop a full understanding of the dynamics of a board or council. However, when time and resources are limited, auditors may not be able to interview all directors; in such situations, they will need to carefully consider which directors to interview.
One final aspect to consider when planning interviews with directors or governors is their timing. It is generally better for auditors not to interview board or council members before they interview management and develop a good understanding of the risks and issues facing the audited organization. Once this is done, directors or governors can be interviewed. This way, auditors will be in a position to assess whether directors or governors are aware of the main issues facing the organization and what they are doing to monitor and resolve them. Since auditors may often have only one chance to interview individual directors, it is in their interest to carefully consider the best moment to do so.
LinkedIn
Twitter