>Sorry, guys, but I have to take the other side. >The vendor has *no* control over how you implement the software. Or if you choose to remove a piece and replace it. Or if >you configure it such that it does not behave as it is supposed to.
>So, take some auditors trying to grapple with a really complex issue and you get some really foggy questions. Worse, they >are bound to be making some really, ah, interesting 'suggestions'. >We gotta come up with some really good answers, and fast. IBM, your customers are hurting here! Which is precisely why the questions being asked are just stupid. An auditor's job is to validate procedures and spot check individual elements to ensure that there are no fundamental flaws in them. To ask questions about specific modules is just dumb. What could he do even with accurate information? That's not auditing. It's the same in financial auditing. An auditor will check procedures, and even individual entries. Might even pull some receipts and documentation to ensure that it all matches up, but you can be assured he's not going to go back to the original person that filed an expense report and ask them to justify a particular meal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
