1. PSC survey Survey is one input out of several to the evaluation report
We know that the phrasing of the questions and the mood of the respondents have a considerable influence on the answers provided.
This is not the one and only truth about INTOSAI’s standard setting, but it is one side of the truth and I think we can draw a few cautious conclusions on the basis of the answers.
Consider for a moment that INTOSAI was a manufacturer of chairs and this was the very first chair it had produced – and make no mistake – this is a functional chair – you can sit here for a while - take the load off your feet and lean back without tumpling to the floor.
But if you wanted to stay and be successful in the chair manufacturing business you would probably not stop working on it, wouldnt’ you try to refine it a bit? Add armrests, a bit of upholstery, maybe even a footrest!
Well, it’s a bit like that with INTOSAI’s standard setting and the survey results seem to indicate that there is a need to add armrests and upholstery.

2. Opportunities for improvement
Standard-setting competencies
Coordination across the framework
Feedback mechanisms
As you can see, a nice mix of very concrete, relatively straight-forward tasks and a couple of somewhat more comprehensive and complex tasks.
Before we go into that – first a few facts on the survey.

3. Who? 155 participants - conducted through February
Based on the 280 – response rate (57%)
Involved in developing and or approving ISSAIs and INTOSAI GOVs.

4. Why? 7% - experience within standard setting
18% - experience developing audit methodology
42% - expertise within various fields of audit
25% - involved in international work
In numbers:
8 people 21 38 28
1 person had no idea whatsoever

5. Knowledge of the ISSAI framework
How familiar with the framework
Knowing the context you are working in when you are developing audit standards must be considered a huge advantage.
Well – how did the participants respond:
88 felt they had good knowledge of the ISSAIs on level 1, 2 and 3.
56 were well acquainted with both these ISSAIs and the financial, compliance and performance auditing guidelines on level 4 – and 44 of these also had experience with audits conducted on the basis of the ISSAIs, which must also be considered a huge advantage.
19 felt ready to take a quiz on all sections of the framework

6. Theme 1 Do the processes established under goal 1 provide for legitimate, independent and transparent standard setting?
The results of the survey have been categorised in accordance with the six themes that were included in the original plan for the evaluation of INTOSAI’s standard setting processes.
The most interesting result under this theme was the answers to the question on competencies:
67% strongly agreed/agreed that their colleagues had the competencies required to develop authoritative standards.
21% not so confident about that and 10% disagreed with the statement.
These are not alarming figures, but they indicate a need to focus on developing INTOSAI’s competencies within standard setting further and build on the current competencies to the widest extent possible.
Under this theme, we also asked the respondents who they thought had most influence on the contents of the ISSAIs or INTOSAI GOVs, and it was quite interesting that only 2% found that the respective steering committees were the ones that decided the contents.
Its interesting because - according to the Due Process – the SC have the formal responsibility for the content and quality of the ISSAIs and INTOSAI GOVs , yet they have no influence on what goes into them.

7. Theme 2 Has goal 1 resulted in a clear and consistent set of standards for public-sector auditing that can be implemented and referred to by all INTOSAI members?
Here
50% strongly agrees or agrees with the statement that the messages and terms of the standards are clear and consistent across the framework.
34% agrees somewhat with the statement and 17% are undecided or disagree to some extent or other.
Clarity and consistency are two features that should be quite high on the priority list of any standard setter, and the fact that only half of the respondents experience this clarity and consistency is therefore not satisfactory.
Can the standards be implemented and referred to by all INTOSAI members – from the least developed to the most advanced.
85% agrees to some extent or other that they can and 10% disagrees.
We might have had entire different answers, if the respondents had not all been involved in developing or approving standards and perhaps the input provided by Archana from IDI will shed more light on this issue and the difficulties that some SAIs experience with respect to implementing and referring to the standards.

8. Theme 3 Is goal 1 supported by structures and capabilities that provide creditable guarantees to INTOSAI’s members and partners that the standards will be sustained and developed in the future?
Long lives ahead of them
Will be maintained and updated as required
87% of the respondents do not generally consider this an issue of concern.
Yet, when linked to the questions on getting feedback from the auditors and the users of audit reports – which must be considered essential for the updating of the standards - the picture changes completely.

9. Feedback mechanisms
26% of the respondents disagree to some extent or other that INTOSAI has well-functioning mechanisms that ensure timely revisions of the ISSAIs and INTOSAI GOVs in accordance with the needs and practical experiences of the SAIs and users.
A lot lot of the information we need to stay in sync with the requirements of the auditors and stakeholders is already there. What we need to do, however, is establish well-functioning feedback loops between the auditors/users of the audit reports and those responsible for developing the standards to fully utilise this information.

10. Theme 4 Is goal 1 supported by capabilities and processes that enable INTOSAI to cooperate with other standard setters on a mutual and equal basis in order to influence requirements and expectations to audits?
Summing up the answers provided under this theme, there is general agreement – 77% - that INTOSAI is an influential standard setter for public-sector auditing and has what it takes to set the course and define the requirements to public sector auditing.
That is not by any measure a poor result for an organisation that is relatively new in the serious standard-setting business.
But the trees do not grow into the skyes and 15% do not agree with this statement.

11. Theme 5 Is goal 1 supported by capabilities and processes that will encourage a wide recognition of the ISSAIs as auditing standards that can be relied upon by auditors, users and the wider public?
Generally the respondents feel that the characteristics of public sector auditing are clearly reflected in the ISSAIs and INTOSAI GOVs, and they believe they will become widely used.
73% think that INTOSAI’s standard-setting stands comparison with other standard setters, but
17% disagree to some extent or other with the statement that the quality of the ISSAIs matches the quality produced by other standard setters.
The reponses provided to the questions regarding the advice and clarification provided by INTOSAI to its members concerning the interpretation and implementation of the standards seem to indicate that we have an area for improvement at our hands and need to focus more on the implementation side.
8% strongly agree that INTOSAI provides adequate guidance in this area, but 19% disagree to some extent or other.
Maybe the results of IDI’s survey can shed more light also on this issue.

12. Theme 6 Is the standard-setting work under goal 1 organised cost-efficiently?
Overall, the respondents are satisfied with the way the work is organised, they feel that they have the time necessary to prepare for meetings, etc. and they generally think that the objectives set for the development work are achieved.
The detailed questions on the extent to which the costs involved in developing, updating, implementing and complying with the ISSAIs are being considered before the development work is started result in answers that spread across the seven options.
Well below 10% of the respondents indicate that they have considered these aspects carefully and between 10 and 25% of the respondents indicate that these issues have only to some degree or not at all been considered before the development work was started.
A modest 66% stated that the risk of duplication of work already done by other INTOSAI bodies had been considered before projects were started.
It is quite difficult to say something positive about duplication of work, whereas a lot of good can be said of the benefits of coordination , which include minimising the risk of duplication work.

13. This was the last theme covered by the survey and the end of this summary presentation of the survey results. You will get an opportunity to comment on the survey later today after the benchmarking and IDI presentations.
THANK YOU!