A PPENDIX A SOURCES REFERRED TO IN BUILDING UP THE QUESTIONNAIRE

A PPENDIX A SOURCES REFERRED TO IN BUILDING UP THE QUESTIONNAIRE

There include those mentioned in the literature review section of this proposal: Brierley et al. (2001), Schwartz and Sulitzeanu-Kenan (2002), the two overseas studies by Ernst & Young, the MIA studies and the Auditor-

G eneral of Malta’s re port. Others that are crucial in preparing the questionnaire but have not been referred to earlier are Liu et al. (1997), Gavin et al. (1995), Cooper et al. (1994) and Vinten (1991). Specific aspects of the questionnaire have also found assistance from the following works: Palmer (1996), Ziegenfuss (1995) and Chan (1 995).

In addition, materials found on the websites of The University of Texas’s Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Texas State Auditor’s Office and the United States Institute of Internal Auditors’ Global Auditing Information N etwork (GAIN) have been of tremendous help. In particular, the main component of the questionnaire - section

B - was developed based on the 2002 version of the Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Aud iting (S PPIA) issued by the Institute of Internal Auditors of the United States (IIA: 2003b, 2003c).

Basing the question naire on the SPPIA is appropriate since, as Whittington and Pany (2001, p. 788) state: “To m aintain consistently high-quality services across the internal auditing profession, the IIA has issued the

54 Southern African Journal of Accountability and Auditing Research Vol 7: 2007 (25-57)

Internal audit in the state and local governments of Malaysia

Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing. These standards … set forth the criteria by which the operations of an internal auditing department should be evaluated and measured.” This very view parallels the p osition taken by the Board of Directors of the IIA in the “Foreword” to the 1978 edition of the SPPIA:

The Standards for the Professional Practice of Inte rnal Auditing are the result of nearly three years of efforts … These standards are meant to serve the entire profession in all types of business, in various levels of government, and in all other organizations where internal auditors are found. The term “standards,” as used in this document, means the criteria by which the o perations of an internal auditing department are evaluated and measured. They are intended to represent the practice of internal auditing as it should be, as judged and adopted by the Board of Directors of The Institute.

Similar remarks may also be found in the “Guidance Overview” of the IIA’s P rofessional Practices Framework, r eleased in 1999 and which comprises a new version of the SPPIA (IIA, 2003d). Interestingly, the “Introduction” of the new version of the SPPIA states unequivocally that the purposes of the standards (IIA, 2003a) are to:

• Delineate basic principles that represent the practice of inte rnal auditing as it should be. • Provide a framework for performing and promoting a broad range of value-added internal audit activities. • Establish the basis for the measurement of internal audit performance. • Foster improved organizational processes and operations.

To mention just a few works, Ridley (1994), Crockett and Albin (1995), Montondou (1995), Ridley and Chambers (1 998) and Moeller and Witt (1999) have also stressed that for internal auditing to be considered a value added activity it is necessary that internal auditors and other relevant parties comply with the SPPIA.

In its 2002 version, the SPPIA are broken into three major categories - Attribute Standards, Performance Standards, and Implementation Standards - that cover areas such as the presence of an audit charter, the qualities of independence and proficiency of internal auditors, and the good conduct of internal au dit activities.

B ecause of their broad scope and clear definitions, the SPPIA were utilized as the “benchmarks” a gainst which the actual operation of internal audit departments or units in the Malaysian government organizations were s tudied.

B esides SPPIA, the Canadian Government Internal Audit Policy and Standards (Treasury Board of Cana da Secretariat, 2002) document was referred to extensively in preparing the questions in Section B. While there are many similarities with the Attribute Standards and Performance Standards that form important sections of the

II A’s SPPIA, one important difference concerns the reporting aspect whe reby the Canadian Standards demand public disclosure (in accordance with both legislation and government policy) of not only the audit findings and recommendations but also a time phased corrective action plan on the part of the management which must be p eriodically updated (IIA, 2003e).

Southern African Journal of Accountability and Auditing Research Vol 7: 2007 (25-57)

Md Ali et al