[toc-this]

Principles

• Issue analysis is designed to lead to structured hierarchies of audit questions.
• The audit team should carry out an issue analysis before writing the task plan.

Instructions

Benefits of issue analysis

Issue analysis is about applying structured, rigorous, logical thinking through discussion with a wider set of stakeholders. Discussing possibilities provides an opportunity for creative dialectic about question structures. Having key stakeholders involved helps to secure their buy-in to the final product. Experience has shown that audit teams are likely to achieve a better question hierarchy if they adopt an open, inclusive approach, involving a wide range of stakeholders. One auditor sitting in his/her office and attempting to come up with a good question hierarchy or outline report, and then submitting it to their manager for review and so on, is not necessarily the best way to make progress. In addition, issue analysis has the potential for some “softer” benefits in terms of greater team ownership of the direction of the audit. Issue analysis is not a tool to help identify suitable topics for audit in the first place, nor whether a proposed audit is practicable. And while determining the sub-questions should help the audit team identify the audit work that needs to be done, Issue Analysis in itself does not specify the methodology – exactly how the questions are to be answered.

Preparation

In some ways, the most important element of a successful issue analysis process is the hard work done in the audit team before and after the main, set-piece meeting. There is no point in investing time and effort into an issue analysis discussion, if audit team has not done justice to the preparatory work needed beforehand. The success of the issue analysis depends to a large part on the quality of the work done before: knowledge of the area audited, programme logic model, previous audit reports, views of internal stakeholders, Commission, academics and other experts, risk analysis etc. Another important ingredient of good preparation for the issue analysis is to ensure that participants in the meeting have enough knowledge to contribute effectively. Thus the team should prepare materials for meeting participants, and distribute at least two days before the issue analysis meeting. Furthermore, before a session, the audit team should have thought hard about what they see as the potential avenues for questioning. In the material the team can propose an overall audit question, and supporting sub-questions The audit team may designate a single meeting as “the issue analysis session”. If necessary, the team should be prepared to hold further issue analysis sessions, with some or all of the original participants. The team should arrange the meeting: find suitable meeting room and invite participants.

Meeting length

The length of these meetings will depend on the nature and complexity of the audit, but as a rule of thumb, assuming appropriate preparation is undertaken before the meeting, 2-3 hours should be sufficient to develop the top levels of the questions. A follow-up meeting will often be needed a week or two later to develop the output into a robust structure of questions.

Who to invite?

The

[link title="principal%20manager" link="%2Faware%2FGAP%2FPages%2FSupervision-review.aspx%23Principal-manager" /] 

and the audit team take part in the issue analysis meeting. It is good practice for the

[link title="reporting%20member" link="%2Faware%2FGAP%2FPages%2FSupervision-review.aspx%23Reporting-member"] 

to be present, or represented. Whether and to what extent the

[link title="director" link="%2Faware%2FGAP%2FPages%2FSupervision-review.aspx%23Director"] 

is involved depends on what has been agreed with the reporting member, and is decided on a case-by-case basis. Others may be invited to participate if it is considered their contribution could be valuable, even auditees. The value of adopting an inclusive approach is to obtain a wide range of views, and to seek the commitment of the key actors to the audit being planned. Someone with experience in this method could be used to help facilitate the process, preferably someone not involved in the audit, who can look at the topic with fresh eyes.

When to hold the session?

Since the output of an issue analysis is a question hierarchy, it must precede the task plan. Choosing the exact point in time is ultimately a matter of judgement. The meeting should take place when the audit team knows enough about the subject matter to have an informed discussion of the possible audit questions. In practice, audit teams may designate a single meeting as "the issue analysis session".

During the meeting

The most important thing is to participate constructively in the meeting and remain open-minded if your proposals are challenged. Do not worry too much about precise wording: Sometimes sessions can get stuck in discussions of how to phrase a particular question. In these situations, it may be best to run with crude wording formulations, which can then be polished after the meeting. The key is to ensure that there is agreement as to the meaning, or principle, even if session participants are struggling to locate exactly the best way of saying something. These kinds of meetings run best if they are facilitated by someone who does not have a stake in the audit, but who has a very thorough understanding of issue analysis and sufficient experience to help the meeting achieve its goals.

Output

The teams should not expect the entire process to be completed in a single session. Consensus on the overall question and the level beneath that would generally be a good output of the discussion. Issue analysis is the means to an end, not an end in itself. If the audit team is 80-90% satisfied with the output and the output is reasonably compliant with the rules for breaking down the main audit question, then that is probably good enough to proceed. Sometimes meetings do not achieve that much, perhaps because discussions concentrate on attempting to resolve difficult, knotty issues. This need not, though, represent failure: one of the main points of issue analysis is that difficult issues are tackled sooner in the process than later. It may point to the need to reconvene that particular meeting.

After the meeting

After the meeting, the team should send round to participants the key conclusions of the meeting to confirm their agreement. As it is almost impossible for a single meeting to conclude with a fully-developed question hierarchy, the onus will then be on the audit team to develop the agreement reached in the meeting further – to continue to develop the full question hierarchy and once done, to circulate for comment/agreement to key internal stakeholders, and revise as necessary. Just because something was written on a flipchart and agreed at an issue analysis meeting, it should not be regarded as being set in stone and not possible to change. On occasions, such meetings can be subject to mild forms of "

[link title="groupthink" link="https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FGroupthink" icon="external-link" /] 

".

Resources

• [link new-window title="Suggestions" link="%2Faware%2FDocuments%2FFacilitation-tips.docx" icon="file-word-o" /] 
  as to how to facilitate an issue analysis or drawing conclusion meeting.

[/toc-this] 

[panel panel-style="boxed" title="Related%20documents" icon="book" class="ref-panel"] [/panel] 

[toc fixed="true" selectors="h2%2Ch3" class="basic-toc" /]