ISSN 1392-2785 ENGINEERING ECONOMICS. 2007.

No 5 (55)
ECONOMICS OF ENGINEERING DECISIONS

Measuring Performance of Internal Auditing: Empirical Evidence

Rolandas Rupšys, Vytautas Boguslauskas

Kauno technologijos universitetas
Laisvės al. 55, LT-44309, Kaunas

This article summarizes undertaken analysis of the Introduction

performance measurement in the area of internal audit-
ing. Reasons for choosing the mentioned topic were in- A frequent expression of what can not be measured,
fluenced by two main factors. First of all, performance can not be managed could be traced in the managerial
measurement today is facing a considerable increase of literature. Managing of the performance is the main ob-
interest in this subject due to a shift from industrial to jective; however, performance measurement also consti-
knowledge economy. Well designed organizational per- tutes one of the most important managerial functions.
formance measurement system enables effective transla- Traditional performance measurement, based on solely
tion of strategy into actions, multidimensional view of financial information, has been often criticized for its
performance, and proper reaction to strategic issues, short-termism, sub-optimization, disregard of the strategy
faced by the organization. Secondly, the role of internal implementation and other noticeable shortcomings (Tan-
auditing in overall managerial spectrum has significantly gen, 2003). Considerable interest in performance meas-
increased over the past 10 years. Currently, internal au- urement was associated not only with expressed general
diting represents not just a detective mean of control fo- dissatisfaction with traditional performance measurement
cused mainly on financial information and compliance systems based on backward looking accounting informa-
(as it was on the early stages of its appearance), but tion, but also led to the development of balanced or
rather a proactive function in organization, encompass- multi-dimensional performance measurement frameworks
ing assurance and consulting services. Internal audit (Bourne et al, 2000). These changes led to the brand new
adds value through the usage of structured and system- concept of performance measurement (Mendibil,
atic approach, enabling to evaluate and improve the ef- MacBryde, 2006).
fectiveness of risk management, control, and governance The main reason of such transformations in this area
processes. is the shift from material assets to the knowledge based
On the other hand, due to its specific position in or- economy. Therefore, in order to avoid being fossilized
ganization and the nature of internal audit itself, meas- and outdated process, performance measurement has to
urement of this activity is a challenging issue. Following reflect the changing needs of organization’s stakeholders
a formulated concept of “value added” approach of in- (customers, suppliers, investors, employees, regulators,
ternal auditing, performance measurement in this area etc.) and enable to manage organization’s strategic reac-
should reveal the effectiveness and the efficiency of inter- tion to these challenges (Kennerley et al, 2003).
nal audit services. Absence of the comprehensive and On the other hand, knowledge economy has trans-
unified taxonomy has inspired undertaking a particular formed specialized, positioned and sophisticated contem-
research in this field. porary organizations into information-dependant and
Results of the survey have highlighted the importance knowledge-intense systems that critically demand for
of the measurement of internal audit function to the specific internal controls (Bou-Raad, 2000; Ramamoorti,
stakeholders of internal auditing (audit committee, CEOs, 2003). Changed internal control landscape requires mod-
other senior management and external auditors). Fur- ern and challenging internal audit activity, which should
thermore, survey results have supported the hypothesis be the main support function for its stakeholders (man-
that performance measures could be reasonably inte- agement, audit committee, external auditors, regulators,
grated into three identified dimensions of internal audit, etc.). Furthermore, strong and contemporary internal au-
i.e. input, process and output. Besides, it is worth men- dit function plays a proactive role in risk management
tioning that there is a strong correlation between per- process, which is a critical factor in company’s surviving
formance measures, which could be / are used to measure practice (Walker et al, 2002). Expanded scope of ser-
particular dimensions of internal audit. This observation vices, nature and position of internal auditing demand for
justifies the principle of interaction between dimensions a new approach of measuring performance in this area.
and it is consistent with a general concept of cause-effect Significant amount of suggested performance measures
chain identified in contemporary performance measure- could be identified at academic and practical literature.
ment literature. However, unstructured appliance of a set of performance
measures does not lead to the systematic and disciplined
Keywords: internal audit, internal audit measures, approach of measuring performance of internal audit ac-
performance measurement, performance tivity. Therefore, the main research question could be
measures, measurement of internal audit formulated as follows: “What dimensions of internal au-
activity. dit activity should be distinguished, in order to group

9
appropriate performance measures?” of performance measurement approach made a step for-
The aim of this article is to investigate and analyze ward by identifying the flow of value creation process
performance measurement trends in internal auditing and and bringing strategy maps (Kaplan, Norton, 2000) or
suggest commonly accepted solution to measure the in- success and risk maps (Neely et al., 2002). Finally, the
ternal audit activity. The object of the study is perform- third generation (3G) approach of performance measure-
ance measurement in the area of internal auditing. ment encompasses requirements for linkage between fi-
In order to realize the aim of this study comparative nancial measures to non-financial measures, intangibles
analysis of theoretical literature, review of published and strategic control.
researches, quantitative data analysis and formulation
of conclusions were employed. Empirical data was gath- Measures for internal auditing
ered through a structured internet survey. MS Excel and
SPSS packages were used to analyze the survey data and The development of performance measurement in in-
apply statistical methods. ternal auditing could be likened to overall progress in the
organizational performance measurement context. As
traditional organizational performance measurement was
Performance measurement context
focused on financial results and accompanying account-
Managerial publications and even some particular ing information, usually hard performance measures for
sources of performance measurement literature are full internal auditing were oriented towards efficiency and
with a number of different terms (e.g. performance meas- effectiveness of internal audit function. However, evolu-
ures, critical success factors, performance metrics, key tion of organizational performance measurement deter-
performance indicators, etc.) that are used in order to mined much broader perspective of performance meas-
express the idea of performance measurement concept. urement at internal audit. Such transformation included a
The performance measurement, performance measures wider range of internal audit stakeholders and, accord-
and performance measurement system are the most often ingly, more identifiable dimensions, which required spe-
cited. Neely et al. (2005) provides the following defini- cific measures. Therefore, the number of usable perform-
tion of the mentioned terms: ance measures has increased significantly (Ziegenfuss,
 Performance measurement can be defined as the 2000a; Burke, 2007; Morgan, 2007). Internal audit per-
process of quantifying the efficiency and effec- formance measures are not limited merely to a number of
tiveness of action. audit reports issued, duration of audit fieldwork, com-
 A performance measure can be defined as a metric parison of audits completed vs. planned, or actual hours
used to quantify the efficiency and/or effectiveness spent during the engagement vs. planned, but rather in-
of an action. clude a set of comprehensive measures, such as average
hours spent on trainings, average personnel experience,
 A performance measurement system can be de-
auditor education and certification levels, overlooked
fined as the set of metrics used to quantify both the
control weaknesses, applied best practice examples,
efficiency and effectiveness of actions.
number of management requests, percent of implemented
As aforementioned, modern performance measure- recommendations, number of proposed process improve-
ment concept significantly differs from the traditional ments, staff satisfaction survey, management and audit
concept of performance measurement, which was used committee satisfaction survey, etc. (Haas, 2001; Frigo,
some 20-30 years ago. Traditional performance meas- 2002; Van Vijk, Holmes, 2006).
urement was mainly associated with financial manage- On the other hand, in some cases such a broad spec-
ment in the early 1980s, because it heavily relied on ac- trum of possible performance measures may involve con-
counting information (Kaplan, Norton, 1996). However, fusion and misunderstanding during the measurement
due to the strategy alignment, multi-dimensional view of process. For example, some authors (Dudley et al., 1999;
performance and other futures of modern approach, cur- Salierno, 2000) state that in many cases auditors’ experi-
rently, performance measurement is treated as an inter- ence and qualifications are obtained before joining the
disciplinary phenomenon that has a closely overlapping company; therefore, it is more reasonable to measure not
subject of interest with other managerial disciplines (stra- the absolute value (e.g. years spend in industry, internal
tegic management, TQM, performance management, in- auditing, etc.) of particular dimension, but the efforts (i.e.
tellectual capital, etc.). what was done) towards increasing experience, qualifica-
Neely et al. (2003) identify three stages of the devel- tion, competence, etc. Moreover, performance measures
opment of performance measurement approach. At the should not be analyzed and explored as “stand alone”, but
first stage of the development of contemporary perform- integrated into a single performance measurement
ance measurement approach in the early 1990s, new per- framework that ensures a multi-dimensional view of
formance measurement frameworks, such as the Balanced measured activity and enables identifying the flow of
Scorecard (Kaplan, Norton, 1996), Results and Determi- value creation.
nants System (Fitzgerald, Moon, 1996), the Performance
Prism (Neely et al., 2002) or Skandia’s Navigator (Ed- Underlying assumptions for adaptation of
vinsson, Marlone, 1997), have appeared. These, such
measurement frameworks
called, first generation (1G) approaches brought an addi-
tive of non-financial measures and broadened the per- The main feature of the current performance meas-
spective of the stakeholders. The second generation (2G) urement era is a high number of performance measure-

10
ment frameworks that illustrate an evolution of perform- in internal auditing and suggest commonly accepted solu-
ance measurement concept. Although all of them include tion to measure the internal audit activity. Structured on-
a focus on non-financial and qualitative dimensions; line survey was used to obtain the empirical data. Invita-
however, their complexity and sophistication levels are tions to participate in the survey were sent through the
different on a large scale. Such contemporary perform- member exchange link on the web site of the Institute of
ance measurement frameworks may vary from simple and Internal Auditors (www.theiia.org).
unsophisticated, such as Results and Determinants Sys- The measurement of internal auditing (and especially
tem (Fitzgerald, Moon, 1996; Brignall, Ballatntine, 1996) the added value, created by this function) is complex and
or Performance Measurement Matrix (Keegan et al., multifaceted, since the internal auditing is somewhat di-
1989) to complex and advanced frameworks, such as the verse and different from company to company. Therefore,
Strategic Measurement and Reporting Technique – a research should reveal the general and common tenden-
SMART (Lynch, Cross, 1991), the Balanced Scorecard cies within the performance measurement at internal audit
(Kaplan, Norton, 1996, 2000) or the Performance Prism activity. It should also enable to justify the selection of
(Neely et al., 2002). particular performance measures and their integration
Of course there is no doubt that some of them are into a single set that allows getting a picture of activity
adopted in practice more often then others. Even though from a multi-dimensional perspective. Furthermore, the
suffered a large portion of criticism, according to research should also comprise questioning the need for
D.Rigby (2001), the Balanced Scorecard is the most measuring internal audit as well; hence, background of
popular performance measurement framework globally measuring this activity should be also addressed.
with a 44% adoption rate between organizations world- Therefore, the first hypothesis was formulated as fol-
wide. Due to its flexible profile of four perspectives lows:
(learning and growth, internal business process, financial H1: Stakeholders of the internal auditing find the
and customer) Balanced Scorecard became the most us- measurement of internal audit activity to be
able framework globally. important.
An internal auditing is no exception. A number of au-
In case the hypothesis is supported, the justification
thors (Ziegenfuss, 2000b; Frigo, 2002; Cangemi, Single-
of performance measurement in internal auditing is ob-
ton, 2003) or accounting companies (KPMG, 2004) claim
tained.
Balanced Scorecard being the best solution to measure
A diversity of performance measures used at internal
performance of internal auditors. On the other hand, as
auditing may be impressive, hence there should be an
per survey results of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (2003),
option of integrating them into specific dimensions. Con-
only a limited number of participants have developed
versely, such integration of measures should be supported
balanced scorecard approach for the measurement of the
by the statistical methods. Therefore, the second hypothe-
internal audit activity. Furthermore, lack of other strong
sis was formulated accordingly:
empirical evidence indicating the attractiveness of Bal-
anced Scorecard among internal auditors rises discussion H2: Performance measures could be reasonably
on what dimensions of internal audit activity should be integrated into particular dimensions of in-
measured. ternal audit activity.
In order to identify the dimensions of internal audit, Performance measurement approach of the second
fundamental design pattern Input-Process-Output was generation (Balanced Scorecard, Performance Prism, etc.)
applied. Such approach was chosen not only because it implies identification the flow of added value throughout
perfectly reflects the concept of internal audit activity, the measured activity. Consequently, the third hypothesis
but also enables employing the perception of cause-effect was formulated as:
path, widely escalated in the context of contemporary H3: There is a correlation between dimensions of
performance measurement (Figure). internal audit activity and their performance
measures.
In order to test the abovementioned hypotheses, in-
Input Process Output ternal audit practitioners were surveyed about their per-
ceptions, general conditions and practice, as well as their
(experience, (planning, satisfaction, status of internal audit function at organization. Design of
knowledge, fieldwork, requests, the employed survey included general and specific ques-
etc.) reporting, status, etc.) tions aimed to target common performance measurement
etc.) trends in the area of internal auditing. Design of the sur-
vey is summarized in Table 1.

Figure. Dimensions of internal auditing Descriptive statistics

In total, 113 respondents from a number of countries
Research methodology have replied, representing a global diverse community of
The research was designed to address the latter as- internal audit professionals by location (North America –
sumptions. The purpose of this research was to explore, 71%, Europe – 15%, South/Latin America – 6%, Asia –
investigate and analyze performance measurement trends 6%, Middle East – 2%), organization type (national –

11
50%, international -32%, global – 18%) and industry Findings
sector (financial services – 24%, energy – 21%, manufac-
turing – 12%, accounting and consulting – 9%, other – The measurement of internal auditing should be im-
34%). 102 surveys were suitable for further processing portant not only from the perspective of internal audit
and analysis. itself, but also seen as a key subject of interest among its
stakeholders. Besides, such inspiration is justified by the
Table 1 survey results, summarized in Table 2.
Design of the survey
Table 2
Primary reasons for using performance measures
Group Questions
Percent, Response,
Organization (general) Type of organization, loca- Reason
% total
tion, industry sector, number
of FTE, financial figures, To ensure compliance with Stan-
performance measurement 43.14 44
dards on Internal Auditing
framework used by the
organization
To align operations with strategy 9.80 10
Internal Audit Function Type of internal audit func-
(general) tion, number of auditors at To comply with organizational pol-
9.80 10
organization icy, procedures, etc.
To assure that internal audit activity
Performance Measurement Performance measurement will be managed and controlled 52.94 54
of Internal Audit (general) framework applied for efficiently and effectively
internal audit activity, rea-
sons for measuring internal To demonstrate the value of internal
40.20 41
audit activity, importance audit activity
of measurement viewed by
the stakeholders, authority To assure the quality of internal
36.27 37
for directing performance audit activity
measurement process
To motivate employees of Internal
6.86 7
Performance Measurement Practical usage and evalua- Audit Unit
of Internal Audit (specific) tion of represented internal
audit function according To support accountability 19.61 20
to the listed performance
measures
Other 26.47 27
The major part (i.e. 87%) of surveyed internal audi-
tors represents an in-sourced function, while the rest of
In fact, answers of the respondents (Table 3) enable
them (13% of respondents) from time to time use outside
to state that, in general, stakeholders of internal audit
consultants and engage into co-sourced audits.
activity find important the performance measurement
According to the survey results, 44% of respondents
within internal auditing.
simply utilize KPIs, 31% of them use internally devel-
oped framework, 12% apply Balanced Scorecard, 3% Table 3
employ Value for Money / Business Process Model, Importance of internal audit measurement viewed by the
10% use other frameworks (such as Six Sigma and oth- stakeholders of internal auditing, as per surveyed internal
ers). The mentioned results also support the idea that auditors (cumulative frequencies, %)
although the adoption of Balanced Scorecard is widely
recommended, it is not very popular between internal Board / Other Exter- Other
Impor-
Audit CEO senior nal stake-
auditors. tance*
comm. mngmt. audit hold.
Primary reasons for using performance measures
within internal audit activity are summarized in 1 2.9 2.9
Table 2.
2 5.9 5.9 14.7 11.7
As we can see from the table above, the main reason
(52.94%) of using performance measures within internal 3 18.6 11.8 32.4 29.4 23.5
auditing is to assure that internal audit activity will be
4 69.1 54.8 73.5 52.9 58.7
managed and controlled efficiently and effectively. Other
major reasons include ensuring compliance with Interna- 5 90.1 93.0 86.3 70.6 67.6
tional Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal
Auditing (that require ongoing supervision and monitor- N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
ing of activity) and intention to demonstrate value of in- * Where 1 means absolutely not important and 5 means very
ternal auditing. important.

12
 Since the major part of internal audit clients (except Finally, the correlation analysis was performed at this
other stakeholders) find the measurement of internal audit phase of the research. The phrase that “correlation does
performance more or less important, Hypothesis 1 is sup- not imply or mean the causation” is often used in many
ported. This means that internal auditors feel that the sciences; however, saying that “correlation does not sug-
measurement of their performance is a subject of interest gest causation” is also false. Due to this reason we might
not only them, but also to a broad range of their stake- assume that a strong correlation often suggests or in-
holders. Relatively low rate of importance among other creases the probability of causal relationships between
stakeholders could be explained by the superficial inter- variables (Tufte, 2006). Although survey results have
action between internal auditors and other stakeholders revealed correlations between the measures assigned to
(such as clients, suppliers, regulators, etc.). different dimensions as well as correlations within a sin-
In order to structure the population of performance gle dimension, only the former correlations will be dis-
measures used within internal audit, a comparative analy- cussed further, considering the 3 rd hypothesis.
sis of published sources (Ziegenfuss, 2000a, 2000b; The usage of Pearson’s correlation revealed a strong
Frigo, 2002; Haas, 2001; Van Vijk, Holmes, 2006), bulle- correlation (R = 0.743, p<0.001) between the auditors
tins of accounting companies (KPMG, PriceWaterhouse- training hours and applied best practice examples during
Coopers, Deloitte Touche) and other databases (e.g. the audit process. Auditors training hours also correlate
Global Audit Information Network – GAIN) was used. with audit process innovations (R = 0.709, p<0.001) and
Such analysis allowed creating a comprehensive list of applied modern technologies (R = 0.789, p<0.001). Since
most internal audit measures that could be used within the percentage of certified auditors is influenced by their
internal audit, eliminate duplicates and group them by knowledge and experience, which is required to obtain
appropriate dimensions. In total 30 performance measures professional certification, a strong correlation was identi-
were listed in the survey. fied between this measure and deviations from engage-
Possible performance measures, obtained through a ment deadlines (R = 0.737, p<0.001) as well as number
comparative literature analysis, were grouped according of audit reports issued during the year (R = 0.704,
to the identified dimensions of internal auditing. Respon- p<0.001). Besides, average personnel industry experience
dents were asked to evaluate their internal audit shops directly correlates (R = 0.786, p<0.001) with a number of
(units) according to the given performance measures. process reengineering proposed by internal auditors.
Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach ) coefficient was applied Further analysis disclosed correlation (R = 0.758,
in order to test the reliability of performance measures for p<0.001) between applied best practice examples and
each dimension. Results of these statistics are summa- percentage of implemented recommendations. This rela-
rized in Table 4. tionship could be explained through a positive influence
of applied best practice examples as well as the auditors’
Table 4
ability to marketing them.
Calculated Cronbach  by identified dimensions Needed to say that spectrum of internal audit services
of internal auditing correlates with a number of management requests (R =
0.725, p<0.001). For this reason we might say that man-
Dimension agement is prone to involve internal auditors more often
Performance measures
() when the latter have a broader spectrum of proposed ser-
vices. Accordingly, the status of internal audit at organi-
Input Average trainings per auditor, percentage of zation viewed by the senior management correlates with
certified auditors, experience in internal percentage of implemented recommendations (R = 0.769,
( = 0.7233) auditing, experience in industry, level of
p<0.001). Furthermore, also the status of internal audit
modern technologies used, level of best prac-
tice applied
viewed by the senior management and the audit commit-
tee correlates considerably (R = 0.740, p<0.001).
Process Spectrum of internal audit services, time to The abovementioned correlations support the 3 rd hy-
address management requests, deviations pothesis. This means that there is a strong correlation
( = 0.8403) from engagement plan, completed vs. between the measures allocated to different dimensions of
planned audits, chargeability rate, average internal audit activity. Accordingly, this implies identifi-
duration of the audit, number of audit reports cation of the value creation flow at different phases of
per year, number of process reengineering activity, i.e. auditors are trained properly and gain experi-
ence, and this positively influences the audit process
Output Number of management requests, auditee (work is done more effectively, auditors provide more
satisfaction level, percentage of recommen- reasonable recommendations etc.), satisfaction of audit
( = 0.7254) dations implemented, role of internal audit-
stakeholders, and, finally, the status of internal audit
ing viewed by the audit committee and sen-
ior management function.

Conclusions
The table above statistically proves the reliability
of chosen integration scenario and supports the hypothe- The following conclusions could be drawn from the
sis that performance measures could be reasonably performed research:
integrated into particular dimensions of internal audit  Performance measurement has crossed the borders
activity. of financial management and became an inter-

13
 disciplinary subject that is on the radar of business 8. Edvinsson, L. Intellectual Capital: The Proven Way to Establish
Your Company’s Real Value By Measuring Its Hidden Values /
practitioners as well as academic scholars.
L.Edvinsson, M.S.Malone. London, 1997.
 Performance measurement in internal auditing is
9. Fitzgerald, L. Performance Measurement in Service Businesses /
no exemption. The importance of soft measures in L.Fitzgerald, P. Moon. London: CIMA, 1996.
overall measurement process has increased signifi- 10. Frigo, M.L. A Balanced Scorecard Framework for Internal Audit-
cantly. ing Departments Altamonte Springs Florida: Institute of Internal
 Due to the lack of a strong evidence favorable to Auditors Research Foundation, 2002.
adaptation of certain performance measurement 11. Haas, L.D. The Bottom Line – value of internal audit department to
framework (e.g. balanced Scorecard), fundamental firms // Internal Auditor, 2001, June, p.40-41.
design pattern Input-Process-Output was proposed 12. Kaplan, R.S. The Balanced Scorecard – Translating Strategy into
Action / R.S.Kaplan, D.P.Norton. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business
to measure performance of internal auditors. School Press, 1996.
 An internet survey was performed among internal 13. Kaplan, R.S. The Strategy Focused Organization: How Balanced
auditors, in order to explore, investigate and ana- Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment /
lyze performance measurement trends in internal R.S.Kaplan, D.P.Norton. Harvard Business School Press, Boston,
auditing and suggest commonly accepted solution MA, 2000.
to measure the internal audit activity. Three hy- 14. Keegan, D.P. Are Your Performance Measures Obsolete? / D.P.
Keegan, R.G.Eiler, C.R.Jones // Management Accounting, 1989,
potheses were formulated in order to address the June, p. 45-50.
aim of the survey.
15. Kennerley, M. Survival of the fittest: measuring performance in a
 Results of the survey support the 1 st hypothesis changing business environment / M.Kennerley, A.Neely, C.Adams
that stakeholders of internal audit activity (audit // Measuring Business Excellence, 2003, Vol.7, No.4, p.37-43.
committee members, CEOs, other senior manage- 16. KPMG. Building a success model for internal audit: The balanced
ment, external auditors) find measurement of the scorecard. Singapore, 2004.
mentioned activity more or less important. Fairly 17. Lynch, R.L. Measure Up – Yardsticks for Continuous Improvement
low rate of importance among other stakeholders / R.L.Lynch, K.F.Cross. Cambridge MA: Blackwell Publishers,
1991.
(such as regulators etc.) could be explained by the
18. Mendibil, K. Factors that affect the design and implementation of
superficial interaction between them and internal team-based performance measurement systems / K.Mendibil,
auditors. J.MacBryde // International Journal of Productivity and Perfor-
 The reliability of chosen integration scenario, mance Management, 2006, Vol. 55, No 2, p. 118-142.
when performance measures were grouped accord- 19. Morgan, S.L. Performance Measurement in Public Sector Auditing
ing to the identified dimensions of internal audit // Proceeding of the International Conference of the Institute of In-
ternal Auditors. Amsterdam, 2007, 8-11 July.
activity, was statistically proved by the values ob-
20. Neely, A. Performance measurement system design: a literature
tained through a usage of Cronbach . Calculated review and research agenda / A.Neely, M.Gregory, K.Platts // In-
values of Cronbach  (0.7233, 0.8403 and 0.7254 ternational Journal of Operations, Production Management, 2005,
accordingly) support the 2 nd hypothesis. Vol. 25, No 12, p.1228-1263.
 A strong correlation (0.725  R  0.789; p = 21. Neely, A. The Performance Prism: The Scorecard for Measuring
0.001) between performance measures assigned to and Managing Business Success / A.Neely, C.Adams,
M.Kennerley, London: Prentice Hall, 2002.
different dimensions of internal audit indicate that
22. Neely, A. Towards the Third Generation of Performance Measure-
there is a certain relationship between the identi- ment / A.Neely, B.Marr, G.Roos, S.Pike, O.Gupta // Controlling,
fied measures. This also supports the 3 rd formu- 2003, Heft 3/4, März/April, p. 129-135.
lated hypothesis. 23. Ramamoorti, S. Research opportunities in internal auditing. Chap-
ter 3: Internal auditing: history, evolution, and prospects. Alta-
References monte Springs, FL.: The Institute of Internal Auditors. 2003.
1. Bou-Raad, G. Internal auditors and value-added approach: the new 24. Rigby, D. Management tools and techniques: a survey // California
business regime // Managerial Auditing Journal, 2000, Vol.15, No. Management Review, 2001, Vol. 43(2), p. 139-160.
4, 182-186. 25. Salierno, D. The Right Measures // Internal auditor, 2000, Febru-
2. Bourne, M. Designing, implementing and updating performance ary, p. 41-44.
measurement systems / M.Bourne, J.Mills, M.Wilcox // Interna- 26. Tangen, S. Performance measurement: from philosophy to practice
tional Journal of Operations, Production Management, 2000, Vol. // International Journal of Productivity and Performance Manage-
20, No 7, p.754-771. ment, 2004, Vol. 53, No 8, p. 726-737.
3. Brignall, S. Performance Measurement in Service Businesses Revi- 27. Tufte, E. R. The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint: Pitching Out Cor-
sited / S.Brignall, J.Ballantine // International Journal of Service rupts Within. Cheshire, Connecticut: Graphics Press, 5, 2006.
Industry Management, 1996, Vol. 7, Issue 1, p. 6-31. 28. Van Wijk, E.R. Collecting performance data: a CAE seeks a new
4. Burke, M.A. 12 Key Success Factors for Today’s Internal Auditors benchmarking strategy to gauge his audit shop's effectiveness /
// Proceeding of the International Conference of the Institute of In- E.R.Van Wijk, T.R.Holmes // Internal Auditor, 2006, October, p.
ternal Auditors. Amsterdam, 2007, 8-11 July. 30-32.
5. Cangemi, M.P. Managing the audit function: a corporate audit 29. Walker, P.L. Enterprise Risk Management: Pulling it All Together /
department procedures guide 3rd ed. Hoboken / M.P.Cangemi, P.L.Walker, W.G. Shenkir, and T.L. Barton. Altamonte Springs,
P.Singleton. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons Inc., 2003. FL: The Institute of Internal Auditors Research Foundation, 2002.
6. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Global internal audit the new reality, 30. Ziegenfuss, D.E. Measuring Performance // The Internal Auditor,
2003. 2000a, Vol. 57, Issue 1, p. 36-40.
7. Dudley, E.M. How do you measure Success? / E.M.Dudley, 31. Ziegenfuss, D.E. Developing an internal auditing department ba-
M.R.Plumpy, M.C.Knobloch // Internal auditor, 1999, April, V. 56, lanced scorecard // Managerial Auditing Journal, 2000b, Vol. 15,
p. 58-63. Issue 1, p. 36-40.

14
Rolandas Rupšys, Vytautas Boguslauskas nimo praktikoje taikomų rodiklių minimi tokie rodikliai kaip audito-
rių mokymams skirtas laikas, personalo patirtis, auditorių išsilavini-
Vidaus audito veiklos vertinimas: empiriniai įrodymai mo bei atestavimo skalės, taikomi geriausios praktikos pavyzdžiai,
Santrauka įgyvendintų rekomendacijų dalis, vadovybės pavedimų skaičius,
pasitenkinimas audito paslaugomis ir kt. (Haas, 2001; Frigo, 2002;
Šiame straipsnyje pateikiama atlikta veiklos vertinimo vidaus Van Vijk, Holmes, 2006).
audito srityje analizė. Straipsnio temos pasirinkimą nulėmė keli Neatsiejamas šiuolaikinės veiklos vertinimo koncepcijos bruožas
veiksniai. Pirma, postūmis žinių ekonomikos link sąlygojo reikšmin- yra palyginti gausūs veiklos vertinimo modeliai (angl. – frameworks).
gą susidėmėjimą veiklos vertinimo fenomenu, kadangi tinkamai Nors visi šie siūlomi veiklos vertinimo modeliai apima ne finansinius
organizuotas ir atliekamas veiklos vertinimo procesas įgalina užtik- bei kokybinius rodiklius, tačiau jie skiriasi sudėtingumu: pradedant
rinti strategijos transformavimą į konkrečius veiksmus, daugiamačio nuo nesudėtingų ir gana paprastų modelių (tokių kaip Rezultatų ir
veiklos vaizdo generavimą ir tinkamą organizacijų reakciją į strategi- lemiamų veiksnių sistema ar Veiklos vertinimo matrica) ir baigiant
nius iššūkius. Antra, vidaus audito vaidmuo valdymo sprendimų sudėtingais ir kompleksiniais veiklos vertinimo modeliais (tokiais
spektre per pastaruosius dešimt metų reikšmingai išaugo. Pastaruoju kaip SMART, Subalansuotų rodiklių sistema ar Veiklos prizme). Be
metu vidaus auditas nebetapatinamas vien su finansinės informacijos abejo, šių modelių universalaus adaptavimo galimybės ir praktinio
bei atitikties tikrinimu (kas buvo pastebima pirmosiose vidaus audito pritaikymo populiarumas yra skirtingi. Publikacijos įgalina teigti, kad
atsiradimo stadijose), bet veikiau apibrėžiamas kaip aktyvi funkcija subalansuotų rodiklių sistema yra, ko gero, dažniausiai taikoma orga-
organizacijos viduje, apimanti tikrinimo bei konsultavimo paslaugas. nizacijų praktikoje. Būtent subalansuotų rodiklių sistemą daugelis
Kartu vidaus auditoriai kuria pridėtinę vertę naudodami struktūrizu o- autorių (Ziegenfuss, 2000b; Frigo, 2002; Cangemi, Singleton, 2003)
tą ir sisteminį požiūrį, įgalinantį vertinti ir tobulinti organizacijos siūlo naudoti vidaus audito veiklai vertinti. Kita vertus, Deloitte Tou-
rizikos valdymo, kontrolės ir priežiūros procesų efektyvumą. che Tohmatsu (2003) atlikti tyrimai leidžia teigti, kad minėtas veiklos
Kita vertus, dėl vidaus audito specifiškumo bei išskirtinės pad ė- vertinimo modelis nėra itin populiarus tarp vidaus auditorių. Be to,
ties organizacijoje, vidaus audito veiklos vertinimas yra iššūkių reika- nėra ir kitų svarių empirinių įrodymų, kad minėtas veiklos vertinimo
laujantis uždavinys. Suformuluotos „pridėtinės vertės“ koncepcijos modelis būtų plačiai adaptuojamas ir taikomas vidaus audito veiklai
kontekste vidaus audito veiklos vertinimas turėtų atskleisti vidaus vertinti.
audito paslaugų efektyvumą bei efektingumą. Todėl pagrindinį Minėtos priežastys paskatino atlikti empirinius tyrimus vidaus
straipsnio tyrimo klausimą galima formuluoti taip: kokias vidaus audito veiklos vertinimo srityje. Empiriniai duomenys buvo renkami
audito veiklos vertinimo dimensijas vertėtų išskirti, kurioms būtų apklausiant respondentus, panaudojus struktūrizuotą anketą. Pakvi e-
galima parinkti atitinkamus veiklos vertinimo rodiklius? timai dalyvauti apklausoje buvo siunčiami naudojantis JAV Vidaus
Šio straipsnio tikslas – ištirti bei išanalizuoti veiklos vertinimo auditorių instituto narių sąveikos prieiga. Iš viso gauta 113 užpildytų
tendencijas vidaus audito srityje ir pasiūlyti bendrai priimtiną spren- anketų, iš kurių toliau apdoroti bei analizuoti tiko 102.
dimą vidaus audito veiklai vertinti. Straipsnio tyrimas realizu otas, Tyrimu buvo siekiama nustatyti bendras vidaus audito veiklos
pasitelkus lyginamosios teorinės literatūros analizę, publikuotų tyri- vertinimo tendencijas ir atitinkamai suformuluoti apibendrintas išva-
mų apžvalgą, kiekybinės duomenų analizės bei išvadų formulavimo das, kurios įgalintų pagrįsti siūlomą vidaus audito veiklos dimensijų
metodus. Empiriniams duomenims gauti panaudota struktūrizuota išskyrimą bei atitinkamą veiklos vertinimo rodiklių grupavimą. Be to,
anketa iš interneto. MS Excel bei SPSS programos panaudotos ap- tyrimu buvo siekiama pagrįsti ir paties vidaus audito veiklos vertin i-
klausos duomenų analizei bei statistiniams metodams pritaikyti. mo tikslingumą ir reikalingumą. Atsižvelgiant į tyrimo tikslus, su-
Pažymėtina, kad veiklos vertinimo koncepcija reikšmingai pasi- formuluotos trys hipotezės, kurias siekta pagrįsti arba atmesti pagal
keitė per pastaruosius 20–30 metų. Tradicinis veiklos vertinimas iki gautus tyrimo rezultatus.
pat XX amžiaus 9-ojo dešimtmečio buvo asocijuojamas vien su fi- Kadangi veiklos vertinimas neturėtų būti savitikslis ir turėtų
nansų valdymu, kadangi veiklos vertinimui daugiausia buvo naud o- bent iš dalies būti paremtas suinteresuotųjų šalių interesais, pirmąja
jama apskaitos informacija. Tačiau, pakitus materialiųjų išteklių bei suformuluota hipoteze siekta patvirtinti vidaus audito veiklos vert i-
žinių svarbai vertės kūrimo procese, veiklos vertinimo koncepcija nimo svarbą suinteresuotųjų šalių požiūriu. Kitaip tariant, buvo sie-
reikšmingai transformavosi. Dėl šių pokyčių identifikuotini tokie kiama pagrįsti, kad vidaus audito veiklos vertinimas yra svarbus ne
pagrindiniai šiuolaikinės veiklos vertinimo koncepcijos skiriamieji tik patiems vidaus auditoriams, bet ir audito klientams. Atsakymų
bruožai kaip orientacija į strategijos įgyvendinimą, daugiamatis rezultatai įgalina teigti, kad vidaus audito veiklos vertini mas yra
vertinamos veiklos vaizdas ir t.t. daugiau ar mažiau svarbus didžiajai daliai vidaus audito klientų.
Šiuolaikinės veiklos vertinimo koncepcijos raidą sąlygiškai ga- Siekiant realizuoti straipsnio tikslą, pasiūlytos trys vidaus audito
lima skirstyti į tris etapus (Neely ir kt., 2003). Pirmosios kartos vei k- dimensijos: įeiga, procesas ir išeiga. Antrąja hipoteze buvo suponu o-
los vertinimo principai traktuotini kaip tam tikras adityvas finansi- jama, kad veiklos vertinimo rodikliai gali būti suskirstyti į tam tikras
niams rodikliams, kuris įgalina susidaryti išsamesnį vaizdą api e suin- grupes pagal išskirtas vidaus audito veiklos dimensijas. Responden-
teresuotąsias šalis. Su antrąja veiklos vertinimo principų karta pasiro- tams buvo pateikti galimi vidaus audito veiklos vertinimo rodikliai,
do vadinamieji strateginiai žemėlapiai (Kaplan, Norton, 2000) bei kurių reikšmes jie turėjo įvertinti pagal atstovaujamo vidaus audito
sėkmės ir rizikos žemėlapiai (Neely ir kt., 2002), įgalinantys identifi- padalinio charakteristikas. Dažniausiai naudojami vidaus audito veik-
kuoti kuriamos vertės pobūdį ir kryptį. Galiausiai, pasirodę trečiosios los vertinimo rodikliai buvo sugrupuoti pagal anksčiau išvardytas
kartos veiklos vertinimo principai suponuoja tam tikrus reikalavimus vidaus audito dimensijas. Apskaičiuotos Kronbacho alfa koeficiento
finansinių ir nefinansinių rodiklių sąsajai bei strategijos įgyvendini- reikšmės įgalina teigti, kad pagal identifikuotas dimensijas sugrupu o-
mo kontrolei. ti vidaus audito veiklos vertinimo rodikliai patikimai matuoja duotą-
Kartu su veiklos vertinimo transformacijomis organizacijos ly- sias dimensijas. Vadinasi, antrąją hipotezę galima laikyti patvirtinta.
gyje pastebimi reikšmingi pokyčiai vidaus audito veiklos vertinimo Kadangi veiklos vertinimo rodiklių rinkinio pasirinkimas nėra
srityje. Jei tradiciškai veiklos vertinimas organizacijos lygyje buvo efektyvus, jei yra abstrahuojamasi nuo vertės grandinės identifikavi-
atliekamas per finansinio rezultato pasikeitimo prizmę, tai vidaus mo veiklos vykdymo procese, todėl trečiąja hipoteze buvo bandoma
audito veikla tradiciškai vertinta naudojant vadinamuosius kietuosius pagrįsti sąryšio tarp atskiras veiklos dimensijas matuojančių rodiklių
veiklos vertinimo rodiklius, kuriuos pasitelkus buvo vertinamas veik- egzistavimą. Gautos Pirsono koreliacijos koeficiento reikšmės įgalina
los efektyvumas ir efektingumas. Tačiau organizacijos veiklos verti- teigti, kad tarp atskiras dimensijas matuojančių veiklos vertinimo
nimo evoliucija taip pat paskatino platesnės naudotinų vidaus audito rodiklių egzistuoja stiprus koreliacinis ryšys.
veiklos vertinimo rodiklių amplitudės atsiradimą. Pastaruoju metu šie
rodikliai nebeapsiriboja vien audito ataskaitų skaičiumi, audito atli- Raktažodžiai: vidaus auditas, vidaus audito veiklos rodikliai, veiklos verti-
kimo trukme, planuotų ir faktiškai atliktų auditų palyginimu ar nu o- nimas, veiklos vertinimo rodikliai, vidaus audito veiklos ver-
krypių nuo plano analize. Tarp šiuo metu vidaus audito veiklos verti- tinimas.

The article has been reviewed.

Received in September, 2007; accepted in December, 2007.

15