Minimize Examiner Scrutiny by Automating Compliance Processes

Minimize Examiner Scrutiny by Automating Compliance Processes

Minimize Examiner Scrutiny by Automating Compliance Processes

Financial institutions can expect to receive increased auditor and examiner scrutiny over their governance and oversight practices, and inconsistencies between procedures and practices will often result in findings. However, these challenges can be minimized or even eliminated by using automation to manage compliance processes.

Incorrect or Outdated References

One of the most widespread exam issues institutions encounter is due to policy inconsistencies, where incorrect or outdated references are used. Mentioning outdated guidance in policies is one of the most common offenses that institutions commit. For instance, referring to an older term like SAS 70 (Statement on Auditing Standards No. 70) or SSAE 16 (Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements No. 16) instead of the newer SSAE 21 (Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements No. 21) could be dismissed as a minor oversight, but it could also be considered a “red flag” causing examiners to question whether the institution has properly updated its policies, resulting in further scrutiny. A weakness in one area strongly suggests that there may be other weaknesses.

Another example of this type of issue is referencing “business continuity planning” (or BCP) versus “business continuity management planning” (or BCMP). Again, this would be a minor mistake because the term business continuity planning is not necessarily obsolete; still, it’s not consistent with the most recent guidance, and could lead to deeper dives in other areas. (In 2019, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) issued the Business Continuity Management booklet. This guidance, part of the FFIEC Information Technology Examination Handbook, replaces the Business Continuity Planning booklet issued in February 2015.)

The problem with employing slightly outdated terminology also applies to phrases like “maximum allowable downtime” (MAD) and “maximum tolerable downtime,” (MTD) which is the newer reference. Examiners and auditors will accept either phrase so this is not a critical issue, but the use of dated terms can instill doubt in examiners and make them inclined to dig deeper into the institution’s policies.

Procedure and Practice Inconsistencies

Disconnects between policies and practices are another frequent exam challenge for institutions. Ideally written procedures should not contain statements that contradict the institution’s actual practices. In other words, your actual practices should as closely as possible reflect what you say you’ll do in your written procedures. For instance, there would be a procedure/practice inconsistency if the password policy of the information security program required eight characters, and the acceptable use policy (AUP) that employees signed allowed passwords of a different length. This type of inconsistency will almost certainly lead to further issues with examiners and auditors.

Another key area of focus for examiners and auditors is board reporting. Disconnects can occur if the information presented to the Board is not properly documented in Board minutes. This challenge is compounded by the sheer volume of information modern Boards are required to digest. The only way to make sure board minutes contain all pertinent details is to periodically review them. This will help ensure that the content of board meetings is consistent with both examiner expectations, and your written procedures.

Integrating Automation

In addition to changes in guidance terminology or updates to guidance policies, an institution’s procedures can and do change periodically as well. So contradictory statements resulting from policy updates are inevitable. Still, financial institutions must be aware of guidance changes and must also ensure their current procedures align with their practices and are consistent across all documents to make sure they comply with industry guidance and regulations. While this is easier said than done, technology can make it easier for institutions by providing regular updates to accommodate changing regulations and trends as well as make it more feasible for them to identify inconsistencies between their policies and procedures.

For example, a simple way to assess your potential exposure to procedural disconnects is to search through the documents in your institution’s information security program, for statements that include the words “will,” “must” or “shall.” Each of these statements contains an obligation of some sort; something you’ve committed to doing. For each occurrence, determine if A) it’s being completed exactly as indicated, B) by the group or individual assigned responsibility, and C) it’s being performed at the designated frequency or interval. Automation can help track these tasks and provide the necessary proof in the form of documentation. Additionally, most policies will make multiple references to the same task; business continuity may be referenced in information security, incident response in business continuity, vendor management in both information security and business continuity, etc. A change to a procedure or practice in one document should automatically trigger the associated changes elsewhere.

Integrating automation into the equation can help institutions streamline their methods for managing a variety of compliance changes and issues and greatly reduce the most common causes of findings due to disconnects and inconsistencies. Automation can make it easier to maintain more consistent and complete integration in areas throughout the organization, including information security, risk management, network management, vendor management, and business continuity management. Ultimately, automated updating, tracking, reporting, and other tasks can facilitate better preparation for exams and audits, and greatly reduce stress levels!

To learn more about how automating routine procedures can help financial institutions avert auditor and examiner criticism, listen to our webinar on “Managing Your Compliance Processes in 2021: Is There a Better Way?”

If you’re not certain where to begin when it comes to automating your compliance processes, check out our new service, COMPaaS™ (Compliance as a Service). This set of connected applications and powerful monitoring and reporting tools can be customized to target and eliminate your institution’s specific compliance pain points. One of our experts will help you create a solution that is unique to your institution, so you only pay for the services you need. And you can feel confident in choosing from products and services that are backed by nearly 30 years of experience in the banking industry.

Be the first to hear about regulatory guidance and industry trends