At 11:00 -0500 on 12/23/2010, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote about
Re: Authorized Rexx Assembler Function:
Just once I would like to encounter an auditor experienced enough to
find real problems before they can bite me, instead of reading a
worthless cookbook.
Most of them that I have run into are of that incompetent type. They
fail to have what I feel to be the primary qualification to be an
auditor - The ability to do (or better the experience of having done)
the job that they are supposed to audit.
Anyone who just works off a check list of things to look for or gripe
about should be terminated (possibly with "Extreme Prejudice" <g>)
from their assignment as soon as they show their inability to perform
their job (IOW: You tell the Auditing Firm/Department that you want
someone who is qualified to conduct the audit that you are paying
for). A Financial Auditor is supposed to be a CPA, so why are
Computer Auditors not required to be qualified System Programmers?
This is, of course, if your goal for the audit is to actually get a
valid critique of your procedures not just a meaningless report that
you can wave around to say "We Were Audited and Passed" to meet some
certification requirement. Too often the "Audit" is for that later
purpose so the less competent the "Auditor" the better (so long as
you can "prove" that you met the cookbook designated criteria).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
