ΠΕΡΙΓΡΑΦΗ

Audit findings should lead to measurable risk reduction and stronger control environments—not vague action plans, recurring due-date extensions, unverified closure, or policy changes that fail to alter behaviour.

This practical workshop equips participants to turn audit findings into credible, sustainable improvement plans. Participants learn how to identify recurring and systemic weaknesses, distinguish symptoms from evidenced causes, challenge weak management actions, design proportionate remediation, monitor delivery, validate results, and decide whether a matter should be closed, extended, escalated, re-opened, or subject to formal residual-risk acceptance.

The workshop follows one disciplined cycle:

Finding → evidence → cause analysis → remediation → interim protection → validation → sustainable closure or formal risk acceptance.

ΣΚΟΠΟΣ ΣΕΜΙΝΑΡΙΟΥ

By the end of the programme, participants will be able to:

• Acknowledge the difference between a finding, condition, criteria, control deficiency, symptom, immediate cause, contributory factor, evidenced root cause, risk, management action, and residual-risk acceptance.

• Understand why findings recur and become systemic, including weaknesses in design, ownership, systems, process, data, monitoring, governance, capability, incentives, and culture.

• Recognise the principles of effective remediation governance, interim risk protection, action tracking, validation, closure, escalation, and risk acceptance.

• Assess whether a finding is isolated, repeated, thematic, or systemic.

• Draft or evaluate an evidence-based audit finding using the GRADE framework.

• Apply root-cause analysis without overstating causal certainty or attributing unsupported blame.

• Distinguish design deficiencies, implementation gaps, operating-effectiveness failures, and monitoring weaknesses.

• Challenge vague, incomplete, or symptom-based management actions.

• Contribute to a risk-based remediation plan with appropriate ownership, authority, milestones, resources, interim controls, evidence requirements, and validation criteria.

• Assess whether an action should remain open, be extended, escalated, validated, re-opened, or closed with formally authorised residual-risk acceptance.

• Communicate audit findings, overdue actions, residual risks, and remediation expectations objectively and constructively.

• Develop a professional scepticism towards unsupported causal explanations, generic action plans, repeated extensions, and unverified closure claims.

• Develop a collaborative but appropriately challenging approach that supports management improvement while protecting accountability, independence, evidence quality, and sound governance.

ΣΕ ΠΟΙΟΥΣ ΑΠΕΥΘΥΝΕΤΑΙ

This course is designed for professionals involved in identifying, responding to, overseeing, monitoring, validating, or reporting audit and assurance findings, including:

• Internal auditors, audit managers, chief audit executives, and audit-committee support teams.

• Risk, governance, compliance, quality-assurance, and internal-control professionals.

• Finance managers, financial controllers, operational-risk managers, and regulatory-control teams.

• Process owners, control owners, risk owners, remediation owners, and senior managers responsible for agreed actions.

• Business owners, directors, and executive leaders with governance and control responsibilities.

• Consultants and advisers supporting control improvement, remediation, assurance, or governance transformation.

External auditors and other assurance professionals may attend where they communicate control deficiencies or assess management responses. However, the programme is not an external-audit reporting course and does not replace ISA 265 or organisation-specific audit methodology.

Recommended prior knowledge: Basic understanding of internal controls, audit findings, risk assessment, business processes, and management actions.

ΠΕΡΙΣΣΟΤΕΡΕΣ ΠΛΗΡΟΦΟΡΙΕΣ

Training Outline

Why Findings Recur

• Difference between administrative closure and genuine risk reduction.

• Common failure patterns: vague actions, unsupported closure, repeated extensions, ineffective controls, weak accountability, and delayed escalation.

• Diagnostic poll and facilitated discussion.

Building a High-Quality Finding

• Condition, criteria, evidence, scope, deficiency, risk, severity, and management decision.

• Introduction to GRADE.

• Participants strengthen a vague audit observation into a defensible finding.

Root-Cause Analysis Without False Certainty

• Symptoms, immediate causes, contributory factors, evidenced root causes, alternative explanations, Five Whys, process mapping, and control-failure classification.

• Progressive case exercise: causal map with evidence and confidence levels.

Recurring Findings, Severity and Systemic Risk

• Isolated, repeated, thematic, and systemic issues. Severity assessment, escalation triggers, recurring exceptions, weak management response, and systemic-control implications.

• Participants assess recurrence, severity, and escalation needs.

Designing Remediation That Reduces Risk

• RAVEN framework; corrective, preventive, detective, and compensating controls; interim protection; resources; milestones; dependencies; evidence; and risk-reduction measures.

• Weak-action challenge: redesign insufficient management actions into a credible remediation plan.

Monitoring, Validation, Closure and Risk Acceptance

• Multi-status issue trackers, due-date extensions, validation levels, residual-risk acceptance, re-opening, audit trails, confidentiality, and governance reporting.

• Closure-decision exercise: close, validate, extend, escalate, re-open, or accept residual risk.

Progressive Integrated Case Study

• Northbridge Group case: recurring third-party onboarding and payment-control weaknesses, previously “closed” actions, system overrides, missing evidence, weak review, and management capacity pressure.

• Groups synthesise templates built earlier and present one priority issue.

Communication and Individual Professional Judgement

• Constructive challenge, management ownership, audit independence, escalation language, confidentiality, and evidence-led communication.

• Individual closure-judgement assessment and concise management or audit-committee escalation message.

Training Style

The programme is designed to equip participants with practical knowledge and strengthen their professional capabilities through a highly interactive and application-focused learning approach. Delivery combines short, targeted lectures with case studies, practical examples, facilitated discussions, and realistic workplace simulations.

Through structured discussion, peer exchange, and facilitator feedback, participants will apply the concepts, tools, and techniques introduced throughout the programme while strengthening their analytical thinking, problem-solving, professional judgement, and decision-making skills. By the end of the programme, they will be better equipped to respond confidently and effectively to comparable workplace challenges.

CPD Recognition

This programme may be approved for up to 3 CPD units in Accounting & Auditing. Eligibility criteria and CPD Units are verified directly by your association, regulator or other bodies which you hold membership.