（2002）Fifth Continuous Assurance Symposium.docVIP

Fifth Continuous Assurance Symposium November 22 23, 2002, Rutgers University Closing Comments, Charles Le?Grand, The Institute of Internal Auditors You guys have got to get out more often! Auditors, accountants, and academics involved in the development and promotion of continuous assurance need more and closer contact with other parties involved in monitoring, auditing, and assurance. It is essential to maintain dialogs with the people who address (or better, have) hands-on responsibilities for the processes, systems, and supporting infrastructures that will enable continuous assurance. They speak different languages (and may come from different planets). If continuous assurance is to become the status quo – a way of doing business and auditing – then support will be required from leaders and stakeholders at all levels. The audit committee of the board is a likely source of demand for continuous assurance based on their duty of care for the organization they serve. The audit committee should demand sufficient evidence of effective controls as a normal result of the processes that run the organization and generate its financial reports and other information. They should then seek independent, objective assurance from the auditors that the evidence and information are reliable. Auditors and board members should form a close alliance to promote the acceptance and expectation of reliable continuous assurance processes as a normal part of business systems. Such direction from the top of the organization must then permeate the organization, working through management layers to the people responsible for designing, developing, implementing, and operating the processes and practices that must not only attend to business but also provide assurance consistent with the risks managed and the amount of reliance placed on the processes and their results. For example, the National Association of Corporate Directors () could be an important partner in the Center for Contin