Talk:Computer Aided Audit Tools

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Where are the citations?

This article nees to be cited much more completely than it is. There is either a lot of OR in here or who ever has added all this contect forgot to cite most of it. There are some specific claims that should be removed until they are properly cited. Macutty (talk) 17:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Bold textWhat is the "IS auditor"? Please explain. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:01, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

I belive that this article is far to specific, covering apparently only business applications (and this in a fairly abstract manner). Data analysis is much broader. Wouldn't it be better to write something like "data analysis is the act of transforming data with the aim of extracting useful information and facilitating conclusions"? The present article would then be an example for that. Data analysis in natural or social sciences usually does not use much of the terminology used in the present version of this wikipedia article, but it is nevertheless data analysis. --Dontaskme 21:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I moved the article to Data analysis (information technology) and started writing a more general article on data analysis. Dontaskme 00:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

As a CAATS Specialist, I do not like this article at all. I think it is very inappropriately titled. A much better title would be CAATS or CAATTS. I am going to write a new article then nominate this one for deletion. As for what an IS Auditor is, that is Information Security Auditor. But not all CAATS specialist are IS Auditors and data analysis is a very poor title for this article. Balloonman 07:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and rewritten this page significantly and saved it as Computer Aided Audit Tools. I think that page still needs some work, but it is almost 2:30am my time. This page is very poorly written and does not discuss what the title says it does. Computer Aided Audit Tools is a much better title and I hope that I've captured the real intent of this page there. People who are looking for CAATS/CAATTS will only find this page by acceident. Balloonman 08:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep: There has obviously been a lot of work put into this article and it looks a good start. The request for delete doesn't explain why this article isn't needed and so in the absence of reason to delete I vote to keep! --Mike 22:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no harm in keeping an article, so I have no problem keeping it. But the reason why I'd get rid of it is because the article really isn't about data analytics; it is about CAATS. My question becomes, "Why keep it?" The title doesn't describe what the subject is. It is poorly written and needs a lot of help. I'd get rid of it and redirect it to CAATS. The article itself needs a lot of work to clean up to make it readable/usuable---and in order to clean it up you will end up with either CAATS or Data analysis. I'd rather see effort made to enhance the later. If it makes you feel better, consider it a "Merge" request?

I'd like to see Continuous Monitoring defined in more detail as it relates to CAATS and auditing. It could even warrant it's own page as it is probably a concept used in other professions besides auditing. Also, I do not think that the phrase "Continuous Monitoring" should be directly linked to an external website (the IIA's ITAudit). Shouldn't links within the definition only link to other Wikipedia pages? External links should be clearly segregated at the bottom of the page. Michaelmegley 19:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I just noticed the little arrow indicating an external link. However, I still think that the link to the IIA is not updated or appropriate; it did not link me to a 'definition' of CM. Was it intended to link to the GTAG for Continous Auditing? Either way, I think the link should be removed if it does not point to a legitimate explanation of what CM is. I'd do the re-write myself, but I came here trying to understand just what CM is. Thus far, I have not been able to find an unambigious explanation that elaborates beyond what the two words already imply... monitoring that is continous in nature.

One problem I'm having is with the word monitoring. Most auditors think of auditing as part of the COSO cube. Thus continous monitoring and continous auditing could be synonymous.

However, the COSO model does not address the varying types of monitoring that occur. In some cases a control activity is also a monitoring activity. Some people call these monitoring controls when they are performed by management to monitor the effectiveness of controls performed by their staff. This would indicate a difference between continous monitoring and continuous auditing.

In fact, many of the activities proposed as part of continous monitoring are often just automated controls or improved reporting capabilities used in a control activity. This would also indicate that continous monitoring is a management function that is very different from the concept of continous auditing.

I think this terminology issue is the very reason we see differing opinions expressed in the audit profession on who should be accountable for continous monitoring. If the term can not be truly defined, then I propose it be deleted from the content. Michaelmegley 20:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)