SEARCH

In my previous blog , I discussed four misuses of audits that result from a reactive approach. benefits from being directly embedded into each process rather than only by means of inspections or audits Embedding will enable the level compliance to be known at all times rather than after an audit. Many are already spending excessive effort conducting pre-audits, internal audits, and third-party audits Why wait for an audit when you can experience the benefits of being in compliance right now?

ISO standards help you pass audits, but the Operational Compliance Model helps you achieve the outcomes those audits are supposed to ensure—better safety, security, sustainability, quality, and stakeholder COSO is excellent for internal control over financial reporting  but was designed primarily for audit "What about Audit 3 Lines of Defence?" separate from their real work Line 2  (risk/compliance) monitors rather than enables performance Line 3  (audit

certified management systems like ISO 27001, SOC 2, and PCI DSS—with technology platforms designed for audit safety, security, sustainability, privacy, quality, ethical, and regulatory outcomes—not just support audits

If you're ready to move beyond audit check-boxes and embrace the power of probabilistic thinking, this Assurance As a compliance engineer with over 30 years in the field, I've seen how limited single-point, audit-based Beyond Single Points with Bayes Despite these uses of probability, most programs still rely on periodic audits and risk-based assessments into a unified view Update assurance continuously rather than waiting for audit

Evidence of these processes is demonstrated by audits conducted by internal functions which may include The primary mechanism by which this is done is through the audit function. In fact, for many companies, the words compliance audit, and even GRC are used interchangeably. Unfortunately, when compliance only has an audit “hammer” everything looks like a nail which increases the tendency to "double down" on audits.

The role of internal audit in assessing and providing assurance on culture is discussed, with the report presenting insights from a survey of internal audit leaders. A significant number of senior internal audit executives have not been asked by the board or audit committee However, the report does not raise (but it should) the question of whether the audit function should the very thing that the report asks internal audit to change.

predefined rules, roles, and responsibilities that are documented, communicated, and enforced through audits Transparent and Observable : Ensuring that AI systems and their governance mechanisms are explainable and auditable Continuious Algorithmic Auditing : Conduct continuous audits of AI algorithms to assess their fairness

The challenge with Large Language Models is that traditional compliance approaches assume you can audit You can't audit billions of neural weights the way you'd review a checklist.

Organizations declare their compliance by attestation, verified by internal audits, and confirmed by external audits. operational approach is hard to find when you believe you are already “In Compliance”, confirmed by audits

themselves trapped by a siloed, reactive, and divided practice reinforced by years of prescriptive rules and audits We’re too busy putting in controls, auditing, and working on corrective actions to be proactive.

Use of Audits The use of periodic audits as the primary compliance control is all too common and has By design audits provide evidence of what has happened. Audits work best when organizations are mostly “in-compliance.” Audits cannot correct what has already happened. Are audits enough to provide the assurance that stakeholders require?

This may be enough to pass an audit but is not enough to effectively manage the risks due to: asset,