Continuous Control is Essential: Why is it Still Manual?

Cadency Blog - Compliance ImageIn the KPMG paper Continuous Auditing and Continuous Monitoring (CA/CM): The Current Status and the Road Ahead, KPMG highlights the board and regulatory compliance pressures, cost and efficiency considerations, and the business risks emerging that are having a lens focused on Internal Control teams.

The CA/CM discussion has been around since the early 90s and then it was reported in surveys that many participants continue to perform audit manually.  The definition of continuous at that time was ‘Monthly & Quarterly Audits’.  Now in this survey from KPMG, some of the CA/CM activities are daily!  Does this mean that many companies have suddenly started investing in projects to deliver more… more frequently?

The respondents from across EMEA were mostly from internal audit and there were varying differences depending upon region. But in the main, all agreed that to realise effective CA/CM takes a lot of time and effort but the benefits are certainly there in various forms of ROI.

The areas considered by the respondents to be prime examples of where CA/CM can deliver the most benefit are, as you would expect, around repetitive manual and risk-prone processes such as Journal Entry and Financial Reporting.  These are often transaction based and use structured data which makes a project to automate and manage the controls around them slightly easier to implement fast and effectively.

The CA/CM automation tools available today can help to foster a culture focused on efficiency, control and properly managed risk.

To maintain visibility and management control across all performance management and compliance activities, learn more about Trintech’s Compliance Solution>>