As Chairman of the ALGA Peer Review Committee and one of the instructors for the pre-conference workshop in Lake Tahoe, I feel that a couple of clarifying points regarding ALGA’s peer review program and the workshop should be made.
All in attendance at the workshop were there to learn about the ALGA peer review process, which does in fact revolve around using a flexible approach to evaluate procedures in place against the standards. Based on the class evaluations and other feedback, I believe that with most participants this was accomplished.
As Chairman of the ALGA Peer Review Committee and one of the instructors for the pre-conference workshop in Lake Tahoe, I feel that a couple of clarifying points regarding ALGA’s peer review program and the workshop should be made. All in attendance at the workshop were there to learn about the ALGA peer review process, which does in fact revolve around using a flexible approach to evaluate procedures in place against the standards. Based on the class evaluations and other feedback, I believe that with most participants this was accomplished.
There are other aspects of the peer review process that should also be considered. Review teams are recruited by Region Coordinators with specific needs and attributes of the office being reviewed in mind. An experienced reviewer leads each team and efforts are being made to fill teams with those that have been through the ALGA peer review class. The office being reviewed approves the team before it is finalized and Region Coordinators are available before, during and after reviews for consultation and/or mediation. All of these procedures help us place the right reviewers in the field and mitigate any negative impact that may result when recruiting and approval safeguards fail.
This approach has been very successful. Over 92% of those participating in the ALGA Peer Review Program that responded to ALGA’s 2000 Member Survey indicated that they were “very satisfied” (the highest rating) with their peer review experience. I believe that the source of this participant satisfaction is the valuable feedback and input received during the review from the quality professionals making up the review teams. These team members work in similar environments and deal with the same problems and issues as the office being reviewed. They are there out of a sense of commitment to the profession and in the interest of enhancing audit operations. They are not there to make a profit or identify potential areas for practice expansion.
Another issue I would like to address is that of the small shop. The ALGA Board and Peer Review Committee have recognized the special needs of the small shop members. The Peer Review Committee, with involvement from small shop representatives, made a concerted effort at the conference to address these needs. We published and distributed to all conference attendees a brochure titled “What Small Shops Should Know About Passing a ALGA Peer Review.” This brochure is in Q&A format and specifically addresses issues seen as impediments by small shops to having a peer review.
There was also a small shop peer review breakout session at the conference where small shop members discussed their perspectives and experiences with peer review. Additionally, during the pre-conference class differences between small and large shop procedures and approach during a peer review were repeatedly pointed out.
Fear of review teams that are inflexible, intolerant, and/or do not have an appropriate perspective should not be the reason that an organization does not participate in ALGA’s peer review program.
Jim Williamson is Assistant City Auditor of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and Chairman of the ALGA Peer Review Committee. |
Peer Review