|
Reader Question - Understanding & Evaluating Segregation of Duties
I appreciate when readers share their challenges in applying issues and concepts, as invariably there are an additional dozen people also struggling with this same topic.
One professional writes:
I am new at this and need to understand about SOX and SOD, do you have any other resources? I am looking for Purchases Orders to Negotiations for credit terms, to who enters the new vendor and who signs and who does Accounts Payable all the way through to Fixed Assets? Can you help or recommend a book on SOD or an inexpensive software solution? This reader had already come across a few past entries (Explaining Segregation of Duties, SOD Part II), and was still struggling with putting the concept into application. An additional entry that is less apparent was on the access management challenges that organizations face when cleaning up business practices - a highly correlated discussion.
My best recommendation for a quick overview and orientation to control practices is to really dig deeply into the COSO Guidance for Smaller Public Companies. (I firmly believe that this should be a required part of the curriculum for business programs today, integrated not only into accountancy and auditing coursework, but also fundamental management and entrepreneurship core as well.) In the executive summary, the COSO organization (and framework most commonly used by SOX-compliant companies) acknowledges that limited resource can make proper segregation a challenge:
Resource constraints may limit the number of employees, sometimes resulting in concerns regarding segregation of duties. There are, however, actions management can take in order to compensate for potential inadequacy. These include managers reviewing system reports of detailed transactions; selecting transactions for review of supporting documents; overseeing periodic counts of physical inventory, equipment or other assets and comparing them with accounting records; and reviewing reconciliations of account balances or performing them independently. In many small companies managers already are performing these and other procedures supporting reliable reporting, and credit should be taken for their contribution to effective internal control. I think the challenge in getting one's head around this issue isn't just about ensuring that work has been properly broken across roles to reduce the risk of fraud to the company, but also bumps into larger issues that crop up at most companies. I have observed and wrestled with a number of issues that contribute to the challenges of getting good SOD assessed and in place.
- Job descriptions never reflect what needs to be done. They are at best a starting point that companies use to describe the general requirements and abilities necessary to fulfiling the role. Since these are rarely comprehensive or exact, little time is put into linking these documented descriptions
- Access to systems is quick to add, slow to delete. "Old timers" often have far more access than is appropriate for their current job - introducing both fraud risk AND the "easier to do it myself than ask someone else" viewpoint. This adds to the to-do list of those that are likely your most valuable resources for getting things done - and they continue to mess with things they did in past "lives" at the company.
- Weak or absent desktop procedures make transitioning work difficult. If people don't document what they do, it becomes a very involved process to eventually transition the work. It also makes it harder for an independent person (i.e. manager, new hire) to grasp the nuances and intricacies of the work, so transition time of tasks is delayed.
- Employees don't think about their tasks as discrete parts of a larger process. This is both the curse and magic that gets revealed when a company expends the effort to either perform a COSO framework assessment or bring their practices up to snuff for SOX compliance. Often, individual workers are seeing their efforts as part of a whole transaction process, and can see the importance of their work relative to the overall company. (I love when AP Clerks discover - and can boast - the critical role of 3-way match in safeguarding a company's assets!)
- It will never happen here. There is no SOD issues if we haven't discovered
embezzlement in the past.
"Our employees are all trustworthy and reliable." "Our professionals are all dilligent and properly trained.""We expect our professionals to act ethically and only access what is required for their job duties, not everything that is available to them on the network." - Most companies manage by crisis and design by accident. Processes grow up organically, a result of many different professionals coming from several different companies and working to blend their views and experiences together in a way that benefits the company.
We don't talk about properly segregated activities usually, and this isn't something that is well explored in the typical undergraduate business programs (maybe accountancy and auditing, rarely in management programs). This makes what should be a very natural design consideration a very foreign topic when folks encounter it for the first time. So beyond my rant, here are a few resources that I think do help you in sorting out the logic of segregation of duties. I would also invite reader comments where other useful resources have been found). Here are a few things I've found useful: - "COSO's Guide for Smaller Public Companies" noted above (executive summary). Note that Volume 2 really gets into some good specific examples on a transasction level as well.
- "Montgomery's Auditing", a classic guide for internal auditors. In particular, see chapter 11, "Understanding Activity Level Controls" for a good explanation and breakdown of how parts in a transaction should be seperately managed, and the role that management oversight and reporting can play in detecting errors or misbehavior after the fact.
- Borrow or buy an old college Intermediate Accounting text book for some discussion of the topic with examples.
- Talk with your system administrator or vendor for your financial software, and find out what native "SOD" considerations are built into the access management component of the software. Also, ask them how other clients are evidencing SOD within the system (great approach if you haven't had to become SOX compliant already, as most software vendors have had to scramble to help their clients assess this within systems already. This should also be a key component in your RFPs when it comes to any financially-related software selection process).
- A useful excel layout from John Gregg at UC Davis maps standard duties against roles, referenced as part of a discussion at the SANS Technology Institute website under the title "Seperation of Duties in Information Technology."
Whatever your process for coming to understand the current state of affairs in your organization, "begin with the end in mind" and consider how you will not only identify issues, but how you will implement necessary changes and monitor these changes going forward. Labels: access managment, COSO, fraud, segregation of duties, seperation of duties
 
Segregation of Duties - Part II
From Free IT Solutions, a few links to conflicts of interest as described for SAP (but useful in their generic sense regardless of underlying system): If you have lists you would like to share that are helpful for evaluating segregation of duties, please send to my attention and I'll be sure to post for public access. (I would particularly interested in matrices that map job titles and duties on the vertical and horizontal to plot incompatible duties).
Best, Toby Lucich toby.lucich@insidesarbanesoxley.com PublisherLabels: activity conflicts, segregation of duties
 
Explaining Segregation of Duties
As a controls professional, I'm sensitive to any employee that has too much on their plate, and have to consider if proper Segregation of Duties are in place. They get burned out. They get tired. They feel rushed. They risk simply going through the motions.
But worst of all, they are at risk for creating justifications for less-than-professional performance. I'm not thinking about just fraud (though this attitude is very much at the heart of embezzlement and other acts of personal gain at the expense of the company), but about the impact to professional levels of service delivery.
When feeling overwhelmed, "what is best or important" gets put aside for addressing "what is urgent." Just looking to one's own personal life provides a rich series of examples where important is sacraficed for urgent - poor eating habits, less/no exercise, lack of sleep - all given up for things that feel urgent at the time, but have limited long-term value. We sometimes get sloppy and lose our focus. Not malicious, just a simple error.
Companies work like this too, and just like our own personal well-being, someone has to stop and evaluate what is important versus what is urgent. In a rush to chase the next big opportunity, get the books closed, or just keep up with the processing of so many transactions, companies lose site of what is important to keep up with what is urgent.
In this way, a controls or audit function seems to work like a wellness coach for corporate processes and structure, serving as an independent professional to help keep companies mindful of what is important. Segregation of duties simply defined by U of U means
that no single individual should have control over two or more phases of a transaction or operation. Management should assign responsibilities to ensure a crosscheck of duties. Checks and balances, oversight. While processing business transactions or wrapping things up is urgent, being mindful that we all make careless mistakes is a duty we all have to the companies we support.
A simple challenge question to evaluating segregation of duties is this:
If I make an error in my work, will someone downstream of me detect it before it becomes a major issue for management and shareholders to read about?
By breaking apart tasks (approvals, recording, processing, reconciling results), companies increase the likelihood that they can detect unintentional errors in their results before it's too late.Labels: segregation of duties
 
|
|
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
February 2006
May 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
February 2007
March 2007
May 2007
January 2008
February 2008
April 2008
Sarbanes Oxley
books
Sarbanes Oxley news blog
Sarbanes Oxley discussion
|