TOPIC: Use of Auto Audit
OFFICE: Auditor
STATE: OK
DATE: 11/15/12
QUESTION / ISSUE: Does your office use the AutoAudit product from Thomson Reuters? If so, would
you recommend it to other state audit offices? Based on your experience, what are the pros and cons
of this product?
State
Arkansas
Comments
The AR Division of Legislative Audit uses AutoAudit for our electronic working
paper program. We are still in the process of implementing the application
statewide, but at this point are very pleased with the program. Our “roll out” of the
program has been ongoing. We have all of our templates in AutoAudit, copied from
Word and Excel, directly into the program. It is also easy to place pdf copies into
the program workpapers.
Our field staff really like the application program and think that, once used in a
couple of audits, it saves a lot of time and is easy to use. The review process for
supervisors and up has been a little more difficult to implement mainly because of
the change from the printed copy.
Thomson Reuters has been good to work with, responding very promptly to our
questions. The new version coming out soon – Version 5.7 – will be even more
responsive to our needs because the application will now look just like the Word
and Excel “ribbons” for ease of moving around.
We have been very impressed with both the program and Thomson Reuters. We
looked at several programs before purchasing AutoAudit. Our decision to use this
program was because of the ability to move our templates into the program and
continue on without much slowing down of the process. But, we have discovered
that using the “Activity Checklist” within AutoAudit – where we copy and paste our
audit programs into the Checklists – actually makes completing those workpapers
even easier. We are in the process of completing that transition.
The program has a feature called Snap! Reporter. It is a great tool, but requires
detailed “info in” to produce the report you need. We have about mastered that
process and believe that it will help us in the future to monitor progress, produce
our reports, compile data from all of our audit reports for analysis, and even
communicate with our auditees.
The program has ability to work “off the server” and then upload the audit work. It’s
called Travel Replica. We have had a few problems with that part of the program
that mainly stems from connection problems at the audit site more than staff usage.
We were able to utilize the servers that we already had although, since then, we
have purchased a new dedicated server. Other than that, we have not had to
purchase additional hardware.
The only “con” I can think of is setting up the security rights. With 275 staff, that was
time consuming and has had to be tweaked several times. However, I think that
would be time-consuming and take a lot of thought with any program you purchase.
Connecticut
We are very excited about the upgrade that’s coming, but even as we’re working
with AutoAudit now, we are realizing many efficiencies, particularly with the work on
the CAFR and Single Audit! It’s been good for us.
We do not use AutoAudit and I am not familiar with it. I went on-line and noted that
it is described as, an "automated solution for internal audit departments," and an
Use of Auto Audit 1
State
Comments
"audit management software package."
We recently contracted for an electronic workpaper software package. Our RFP
drew four responses from:
 CCH ProSystem fx;
 CCH TeamMate;
 CaseWare; and
 MetricStream
We ended up selecting the CCH ProSystem fx product and have been generally
happy with it.
Idaho
Maryland
Minnesota
I believe the product you are referring to may not be similar to the products above,
but if you want me to explain our approach and rollout, I would be happy to do so.
Idaho currently does not use electronic audit programs or workpapers, but we are
interested in converting. We have started the research process and had a demo of
one product.
We have been using CCH’s TeamMate for a little over 6 years. Overall, our
experience has been pretty good; however, there have been some rough spots
along the way.
By way of background, the MN OLA implemented AutoAudit in 2007- about when I
started with the office as a staff. I am now the IT Audit Manager. We had significant
challenges, mostly on our end because we had not done a proper analysis of our
business requirements and processes to really understand how implementing an
application would impact how we did our work. In short, we used the application for
glorified content management. I come from outside government, so I had
experience at Target Corp. executing testing for the inaugural year of SarbanesOxley which really became the genesis for all GRC type software. Because of that
experience, I have a vision for us to move forward to finally achieve some of the
ROI we had hoped for. The only reason I say that, is since government has not
been subject to SOX it is somewhat hard to see how all these bits fit together. GRC
can be really complicated if you don't have an idea of what the endpoint is
SUPPOSED to look like.
I am at this very time working with a team of our auditors to complete a business
case for an upgrade from our current AutoAudit version to the most recent
available. It is very detailed because our Legislative Auditor has really challenged
us on the business value of the application. It includes a SWOT (strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis, risk analysis, cost benefit analysis (to
be used in our benefits realization plan), and ultimately an ROI projection. Ours will
look much different than yours if you are evaluating different applications where as
we are evaluating an upgrade from a prior version of the application to the current
version- but some of it might be insightful. I could give you a stripped down version
of our business case (taking out the actual dollars and some of our more sensitive
information) in the next two weeks.
If you could provide a bit of information, I could help you a little more. These
questions are aimed at determining if you need more of Content Management tool
(i.e., SharePoint with some tweaks), a project management tool (sooo many
available), or a more true GRC tool (i.e., AuditAudit/Paisley). All "audit" software is
not created equal: Content management is less complex, Project Management is
more integrated, and GRC is the most integrated. So as you get feedback from
other states make sure you are comparing apples and apples and not apples to
oranges. Content management solutions can be really cheap and are less complex
but they offer less long term benefits. Be aware that it is easier to decide to first
Use of Auto Audit 2
State
Comments
implement a content management solution and then maybe in a few years a project
management software and maybe ultimately a GRC tool. It is MUCH more difficult
to start with a GRC solution and then work backwards. A GRC tool is a longer term
commitment.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Missouri
North Carolina
Are you responsible primarily for municipalities or for state agencies or both?
Do you have an IT audit function?
What is your office's current use of electronic workpapers?
Does your office have "Program Evaluation" responsibilities?
Do you perform Financial Statement? Single Audit? Performance Audits? PCI?
HIPPA?
Do you currently have a risk assessment process for determining which audits
to perform?
How do you track your staff's time or not?
Do you currently provide aggregate reporting of any kind to the Legislative or
Executive Branch(s)?
Who is responsible for monitoring follow-up on reportable findings?
Would you describe your current audit process as being more standardized (i.e.
all auditors use the same general payroll audit as a starting point that they may
modify) or more flexible (the office relies on experienced auditors to create
audit programs)
How many auditors do you have?
What do benefits or efficiencies do you hope to gain from a "audit software"?
Near term? Long term?
Do you have staff with excellent project management skills to assist in internally
managing the implementation or would you need to rely totally on the vendor?
You don't have to email me the results of those questions- but I wanted to get you
thinking! :) I hope this helps!
No, we do not use an automated audit management package. The Microsoft Office
software suite is used for preparation of audit documentation and reports.
Accounting for audit time and costs is handled through an internally developed
system.
We don’t have any knowledge of AutoAudit. We have been using Audit System 2
(AS/2) from Deloitte. However, since AS/2 is scheduled to be discontinued, we
have recently evaluated several products and selected CCH’s ProSystem FX
Engagement, which we will implement fully this spring.
We were specifically looking for a combination of engagement management
software and financial audit methodology (audit programs and workpapers). We
were searching for an alternative to maintaining our own standard audit programs
and workpapers. We evaluated three products closely:



CCH’s ProSystem FX Engagement and Knowledge Coach audit
methodology.
PPC’s (Thomson Reuters) Engagement CS and audit methodology (smart
audit suite)
McGladrey’s audit methodology packaged with CaseWare engagement
management software.
We found there to be advantages and disadvantages to each product, but overall
found the CCH pairing to be the best match for us. We found the integration
between the engagement management software and audit methodology to be more
complete than PPC, we liked the diagnostics offered in Knowledge Coach (tells you
Use of Auto Audit 3
State
Puerto Rico
Comments
quickly when portions of workpapers are not complete), and we liked the ease of
use of the engagement management software. Overall, we preferred the audit
methodology offered in Knowledge Coach, especially for single audit work. Finally,
we already subscribe to CCH’s Accounting Research Manager, so adding these
products provided some consistency.
At the Office of the Comptroller of Puerto Rico we have been using TeamMate
since 2003 with Version R6. As of today we have over 450 licenses and users of
Version R10 which we acquired last year. We are very happy with the program,
especially now that we have all modules (suites) in use. Our office has 20
TeamMate Champions who are up to date in all trainings and help other auditors
achieve maximum potential of this tool. TeamMate is used in 150 remote sites
across the island.
I have listed pros and cons below and have included other information. Should you
need any additional information or feedback, please let me know.
Pros:
 Very intuitive and easy to use for the auditors
 Excellent maintenance and customer service experience
 Great TeamMate community interaction
 Annual user conference
 We like TeamMate's commitment to continually improving their product. This
includes improving the seamlessness and flow between Suite Items (Modules)
 It has a strong built-in security
 Microsoft Office Suite integration
Cons:
 License & maintenance costs
Use of Auto Audit 4