Question 1: What is the value of holding a certification/qualification in your country or territory?

Transcription

1 Question 1: What is the value of holding a certification/qualification in your country or territory? SMALLER AFFILIATES Requirement by corporate bodies. Essential for career development. Recognition and identity Differentiation. Differentiate the professional from the nonprofessionals. CPEs guarantee continues education benefit to employer. No questions about competence Institutes should work with regulators to define the competence needed for the position. Because the law requires competence, but it does not define what being competent is, therefore the value of the certification is to help define the competence framework. Build career path, assurance of competence. Distinction and recognition. An asset for recruitment. Employers give preference to certification holders. Valued by regulators, employers. Need to encourage people to have CIA first before others; clarify in market No law or regulation to require certification CIA is perceived as more difficult than a masters, so they prefer to get a masters, even though masters is more expensive Not earning more Even if given courses and time for test no one out of 50 took the exam as no perceived value Value is perceived by corporate that you would do a better job (at your role) Bring all the qualities needed into 1 qualification and promote that one certification Value comes to the person who studies and does better at her job; distinguishes you from peers, Have challenges to recognize value against big 4 and accounting Have to talk about the value of a certification in internal audit profession There is value in Nigeria People do not recognize value of CIA against ACCA / CA; everyone understands ACCA Value is perceived by corporate that you would do a better job (at your role) Worldwide recognition of the same exam (CIA) Legislation as a result of a lot of promotion CIA is the most valuable. It s general and useful in all sectors. Professional capacity Promoting the CIA in universities for them to use it in the education program. Organizations got the CIA as requirement in job Concern, financial audit, Big 4 and external audit. That is what people think of when you say audit. We need to promote the CIA to a larger extent. The CIA is well known but challenging to promote it. Board members are encouraged to become CIA in developing countries. 1

2 Gleim vs. CIA Learning System confusion about what to choose and why should our members pay more for the CIA Learning system compared to Gleim CAE of Financial organizations consider the QIAL after a lot of promotions The developing institutes needs help from Global IIA with training, resources and promotion material. Advocacy tools. Need of the right content, up to date and accurate Most international companies require a CIA from their employees. Certified professionals have greater opportunities to move-up professionally. There could be an increase in compensation, depending on the region. The CIA provides credibility/prestige to one s professional credentials. Angola has challenges in getting people certified/trained. Serbia it is well known that CIA is crucial. Some guarantee of how you perform internal audit in the eyes of stakeholders. For public sector, the challenge is the cost. Low-wage public sector auditors may not be able to afford the CIA. European Commission demands for international certifications. Would be convenient for CGAP for public sector, but CGAP needs to be adjusted to European standards. Translate questions into Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian. CGAP first step toward getting the CIA. In Nicaragua, five-years ago World Bank facilitated loan to the country. Couldn t go forward without CGAP being adapted to your country. I don t think it is difficult to adapt it to any country. We are struggling to adopt your standards, CGAP for European market, would be valuable for us. Our legislation is made according to standards for IIA and demands of European Union. Most public sector auditors are members of INTOSAI or regional equivalent. IIA Nicaragua working closely with national audit office. Institutes need to work with INTOSAI to do what s best for public sector. Swaziland Certifications do bring value. We have challenges in the definition of an auditor in my country. Employers would rather employ a chartered accountant as CAE than a CIA. Language is too American. For example, the use of the word vendor. A vendor is someone pushing a trolley on the road. We need to find a way to promote IIA certifications so that stakeholders will see the value in it. Because of our history as a British protectorate, in our government British qualifications are more respected. Variety of perceptions on the value of certifications based on local understanding of the particular certification and cultural/regional influences on how the profession is viewed and/or understood. In public-sector settings in some countries, the CGAP is important to differentiating the skills needed for internal versus external auditing. It s not just about INTOSAI standards. Certifications are popular in the financial sector. Not enough certified professionals in a country makes it hard for The IIA s certifications to be recognized and valued. Passing the exam seems to be hard. Funding is discouraged. There is no advantage in having the CIA in some countries. 2

3 LARGER AFFILIATES Multinational companies recognize the value of CIA certification as a guarantee of deep knowledge in audit field CIA is recognized as a strong qualification in financial sector. Other certifications than CIA provides an easier way for promotion, and are cheaper. Professional development, career promotion opportunities. Requirement by corporate bodies. Essential for career development. Recognition and identity Differentiation. Differentiate the professional from the nonprofessionals. CPEs guarantee continues education benefit to employer. No questions about competence Institutes should work with regulators to define the competence needed for the position. Because the law requires competence, but it does not define what being competent is, therefore the value of the certification is to help define the competence framework. Build career path, assurance of competence. Distinction and recognition. An asset for recruitment. Employers give preference to certification holders. Valued by regulators, employers. Certifications: Differentiate between peers. Financial sector higher rate certified Mature organizations where knowledge about IA is larger are more likely to see the value of certified Financial restraints, budget Advocacy towards audit committees Talent is the main challenge - certifications as a solution for it. No differentiation, more a qualification/a basic that shows what you learned the basics when you started your career. Qualifications and certifications are different. Clarify this, designations vs qualifications. Designation in some countries has a lot of value. Consistent and the required minimum. Charted Accountant are considered A list in our country. CIA is considered lower status. Failed Chartered Accountant/designation. CIA equals to Charted Accountant light in our country. Advocacy efforts toward recruiters. However, it is difficult because the client does not require certifications. Certification shows also a loyalty towards the profession and IIA. If it s not requested by the board. Certified assessment rather than multiple choice questions. CIA relevant for only US? Language barriers. Perceived value. The value is connected to the demands of the stakeholders 3

4 Not much value. Is only used in the internal audit environment or within the industry. Outside this is not known. Internal Auditors aspire to be certified. It s for professional recognition. It s a certification not a qualification. Chartered accountants certifications are the ones that are sought. It s difficult to get people to want to achieve it. Multinationals like the CIA certifications. Globally some companies would like it although it does not bring extra revenue or advancement. Chartered accountant certifications are preferred over CIAs. In some instances the PAI is a level 8 and CIA is level 7. Taiwan Corporate Governance is evaluated. Regulation in place and locally CIA is preferred. Japan is very successful with CIA certifications, companies demand candidates with CIA, especially in the financial industry area. Compared to Chartered Accountants Certification the CIA is looked as less rigorous. Requirement for recruiting people CIA certification required also in public sector organizations (more than CGAP) CIA just needs to be better understood around the world to differentiate from the Central Intelligence Agency in the USA. % of CIAs can be used as KPI in companies to demonstrate the quality or maturity of the IAA. Certification holders show competence and qualification for the job. In many cases having a CIA can help employees obtain better salaries. CGAP is required in several countries. Certifications add value to the organization because they are needed to reach maturity level 3. It s of value but how to measure is an open question. One way promotion. The suite of certifications is too much; need a clear picture. Stakeholders are not familiar w/ specific certifications but respect certification value in knowing Sends a signal, person providing the IA service is a professional, part of a profession and continually achieve development and held accountable to an organization with a disciplinary process. Want to know that the IA is competent not specialty certifications don t need to know the details. We don t sell well to those outside IA. Tracking demand of certifications by Big 4 important to have the support and to advocate is a strong message. Most widely recognized is CIA and CRMA. CAE, may not have CIA/CRMA because many come from operations and many are so senior they are not interested in sitting for exams. Explore bundling, if you achieve the QIAL you receive the CIA as a concept for those in senior level not interested in pursuing examinations Bundling CIA LS with CIA certification to pass the CIA exam. Membership and certification should be required as a value for a professional to be part of a professional organization 4

5 Need a powerful proposition on what it means to be a professional Should publish a list of CIAs on website Stakeholders are not familiar with specific certifications but respect certifications-value in knowing Sends a signal, person providing the IA service is a professional, part of a profession and continually achieve development and held accountable to an organization with a disciplinary process. Tracking demand of certifications by Big 4 important to have the support and to advocate is a strong message. MEDIUM SIZE AFFILIATES Gain credibility in the profession show that you have all the qualifications, however it s not a pre-requisite to get an audit job and is not tied to financial gain or promotion. Very good value having a CIA is recognized in companies about 80% Great value especially with CIA certification in international companies than local ones. Partnership opportunity for IIA with international organizations (PCAOB) to mandate/promote CGAP certification in financial sector or other certifications like CIA to be mandatory. Mandate in banking/financial industries to have the CIA certification In some regions, do not have the pool of auditors to strongly promote/ mandate certifications to be mandatory. Trying to promote the CIA as minimum qualifications for the profession in HR and advocate to regulators. CIA is not very well known only within the internal auditor community- need more promotion to the outside community, college, universities, Need more toolkit simple message (5 simple sentences) that can be understood by all that explains the value of the CIA the exams, qualifications, etc. International recognition how different from the other certifications how many are qualified. Have an independent body to recommend the CIA certifications as opposed to the IIA so it does not look self-serving. Credibility, professionalism, showing your knowledge, CIA biggest credential in Latvia. Doesn t add value in Ecuador, more for personal value, doesn t increase their salary. Hong Kong give image that you know specific subject matter. Over the last 10 years CIA has dropped it doesn t keep up with reality and pace of change and marketplace. Specializations more valued in Hong Kong due to financial markets. Public sector is an added advantage. To be promoted need CIA. Not a requirement in private sector. Norway own certification part of MBA program (IIA standards), prior to CIA, run by Oslo business school. Allows networking through the program. Certification was powerful. In some countries the CIA is seen as having credibility, professionalism, and shows your knowledge. In some it is not valued in industry but is valued for personal reasons. And in some it is needed to be promoted. All IIA certifications appear to be decreasing in value because the content is stale and has not been updated to address reality and pace of change in the marketplace. 5

6 Across the regions, there is some good value of having the CIA and CRMA. We believe having the CIA makes auditors better and more attractive for recruiting. Once they pass the exam, CIAs keep learning. In some parts of the world, HR/recruiters are looking for CIAs. CRMA is getting more tracking because risk management is of interest beyond auditors, including risk managers, compliance, etc. The CFSA, CGAP and CCSA certifications are not demonstrating much value. In Latin America the CIA is most known, the rest are not known. More recently, seeing CIA in recruiting, but still room for growth in HR and head hunting companies. Documents for HR and headhunters could be useful. In Israel, seeing CIA and CRMA in recruiting. CIA is well recognized in Qatar. Costly to translate (i.e., $100k). Today, we have 70 CIAs, started ten years ago with four. We get no statistics on those who passed. We don t know if we are teaching the right subjects well or not. We don t have good non-english training materials. Only in the US, people who are certified, tend to make 40% more compensation. There is some good value of certification. CFSA, per banks, not need the CFSA. CIA and CRMA is relevant. We mad the material because we had no material (i.e., a course). CRMA is getting more tracking because RM is pf interest beyond auditors, including risk managers, compliance, etc. In Korea, the CIA is being recognized. In the government sector, young professionals will take exam. Internal Audit name is very weak. Some HR groups still look for CPA (i.e., CPA firms) for CAEs In Cyprus the CIA is the most common followed by CRMA. In last five years in Cyprus there has not had anyone interested in other certifications. The challenge is to have organizations distinguish between certified accountants and CIA. Organizations in the Philippines seek CIA s so the demand is high, but the economics of testing creates a challenge. Qatar has difficulty with the government as certification testing is not in Arabic and other designations are more popular. Lithuania and Paraguay need to focus on advocacy for organizations to see the value of certification as they do not have any current requirements. Have translated materials for training and the exams creates a challenge. In Austria, there is a demand for the CIA and they are starting to see it in employment ads as desirable. There is an advantage to have a CIA, however there is not a demand for the other designations. Value is seen for the CIA as it distinguishes internal auditors from chartered accountants around the world. Costs and availability of translated materials can limit the demand. Value is seen for the CIA as it distinguishes internal auditors from chartered accountants around the world. Costs and availability of translated materials can limit the demand. When organizations employ IA, they look for people who have certifications, typically CIA and CISA. There is some recognition of CIA in the hiring, but not required. It depends on industries. No demand for any specialized certifications. 6

7 Some African countries ask for accounting degree, some even ask for CISA not CIA. CIA is the certification of choice in the participants countries, even there are differences by industries. Stakeholders understand it represents a technical professional. CIA is most important CIA important in Financial Services, CGAP in government, others do not matter. CIA is very strong, others do not matter. Uganda/Ghana/Kenya Accounting certificate required for Head of IA (legal requirement). CIA may be an added advantage but accounting certification is a must. Most people don t understand other certifications. None are mandatory, but CIA is most valued (demonstrated expertise). Does not currently add to career development (no raises, or bonuses). Other certifications are not valued. CIA is very important, people with CIA earn better salaries and more respect. CIA only known among auditors, not known by key stakeholders. Good to have CIA. Other certifications not known at all. Some are starting to see the CIA being required more often in job requisitions. Can t have a law requiring CIA until there are enough CIA s to fill the role. Never see any other IIA certifications in job ads. They are not known. CIA is important and demonstrates expertise. Starting to see more opportunity for growth. Question 2: Why has the global demand for CGAP, CFSA, CCSA, and CRMA been so weak? Is it because of the programs contents? Is there anything we can do to make the specialties more attractive? SMALLER AFFILIATES If they don t understand about the CIA, they sure don t understand about the other specialties Lack of awareness of other certifications beyond CIA Specialties have limited value, doesn t transfer to different roles (ex: if leave government job and do something else) Can t take CRMA because it s only in English; same language barrier for CGAP Can take a different national exam in native language (take 8 exams vs 1 in Macedonia) View it as too easy, just one part. Don t need any certification to be an internal auditor. People do not connect The IIA with these exams. No incentive to get more salary. Lack of awareness of other certifications beyond CIA (not to mention lack of awareness of CIA) Don t need any certification to be an internal auditor CGAP is good and the members got value from it in the public sector. Want to get cgap regulated in local government, advocacy tool for regulators and legislators CCSA facilitate workshops We need tools to promote the different special certifications. 7

8 CRMA. COSO Competing with other risk management certifications from other organizations such as RIM. CFSA - It s good because it has a different focus. Doesn t include Basel. Too shallow If you have to choose certification as an internal auditor, you should choose the CIA. IIA Global has positioned the CIA as its premier certification therefore it is in greater demand. There s not enough knowledge or awareness about the other certifications. Smaller affiliates fear that having too many certifications, may dilute the value and recognition of the CIA. The CIA is applicable to all fields the scope of the other certifications is too limited and not always applicable. The exams are in English there s a language barrier. Consistency in quality are signs of professionalism. In countries that UFAI represent, CIA other certifications have weak or marginal demand. Do we have a push or pull system when developing certifications? In other words do demands from the marketplace create a pull for certifications or do we develop certifications that are pushed into the marketplace? Not clear. There are ambiguities in what is being said. Blending certifications based on weak demand doesn t identify the shortcomings. Certifications process should be a pull process. Definition of internal audit identifies three things governance, risk management, internal controls. Certifications must help practitioners provide those three processes. We must prioritize. Why is there no certification in governance assurance? GRC are like nesting dolls with governance being the overarching piece. The IIA can t live on an island. We have to live with other organization s providing options. Shocked when IIA evaluates risk management but doesn t collaborate. Problem is internal audit working in a silo. It needs to build bridges. CCSA: Internal audit can do a lot on self-assessment. Not to own it. Stakeholder want the problems solved. Whether it is done by internal audit or someone else. Dynamics of human groups can have impact on problem solving. Not well developed to serve the specific needs. Failure to understand the value of certification. Campaign of awareness. Need to know this can solve their problems. Need to make an adjustment in each country. Global organization for public sector. Clarify the key different tween INTOSAI (external auditor) and the internal audit work done in public sector entities. We should avoid jumping to conclusions without analyzing the root cause. Suggestions to blend, reflects that we have not looked at root cause. Part of the problem is that some certifications are too North America-centric and are not well developed to serve the specific needs of a country or region. Certifications content may be poorly design. Designs need to be more pull (identifying what the market needs) than push (telling what it needs). CRMA seems to be popular at this moment due to the current popularity of risk management. It s hard to understand the difference among our certifications. 8

9 LARGER AFFILIATES Relevance regarding CGAP. Based on Yellow Book, it s too American. CRMA - Content not as good as it can be, low maturity. Very basic. It is also already included in what the internal auditor do in their daily work and in the CIA-certification. Collaboration between risk managers and internal auditors. CIA was kept for internal auditors and CRMA for risk managers. CFSA The answers are very subjective. Not tangible. Some promote CFSA to second lines of defense. South Africa: Specialty certifications do not have official status. Should we focus on CIA? YES, unanimous. The cost is high. CIA certification is considered enough. They do not address the local content, context. People do not see the value, not relevant. CRMA had a grandfathering process so many certificates granted were not based on taking the exam. Training should be developed and could be more relevant like a Master s Degree For local Institutes there is no incentive on promoting for the low fee given per exam taken. Update certification, make the assessments more rigorous in order to make them relevant. In Taiwan the CAE in the Public Sector sets the tone, and requires the CGAP CRMA in Taiwan grandfathering and created a path Certifications in English language make it difficult to Chinese speakers. Confusion with other certifications and what would be recommended first among the Certifications. Lack of relevance of local markets. Require parts or all of the CIA before specialties. The special certifications are focused on a specific industry. As CIA you can audit across all industries. Cost of certifications and maintain the status are high. CGAP does provide the foundation but does not provide the required expertise to work in a specific governmental organization Needs to deliver value in the territory/region will be used CIA is seen as premier qualification and nothing else is needed. No value seen in the specialties. CGAP o Because it s too much US oriented. o It may be more for supervisory. o Should be customized for regions, for example Europe. o Should have more CIA content to demonstrate IA competence. 9

10 o There are too many differences among countries to really make it regional. Government is unique to the country. o CIA should be the main certification. o Lack of awareness about the value of CGAP. CFSA o US centric. o New syllabus may be more global. Financial services audit practices are more homogeneous and there is a better possibility to make it relevant to all regions. o Need to revise the syllabus because 15 years is too old. o Need more CIA or make CIA mandated before taking the certification. o Mandating CIA as foundation may reduce the demand for CFSA because people may not want to put the extra effort. CCSA o Too many overlaps with CIA. o Not much use for control self-assessment in companies. o Control self-assessment is not part of the IIA scope. o Lack of awareness about the existence or value of this certification. o Need more marketing to promote the relationship with CIA. o This may be more helpful to second line of defense. o It covers areas that are not included in CIA. o It can be rolled into CRMA, CIA or COSO certifications. o It has been proven that CCSA is for first or second lines of defense, but never for the third line. CRMA o It was given without proving competence. o Difficult to compete with other certifications provided by RM specialist organizations. o If content is cover in CIA, we don t need to have a separate certification. o Move content to CGAP and CFSA and CIA. Keep CGAP (if localize) as certification or ABC. Keep CFSA as a certification. Cancel CCSA and CRMA. They have some value but do not enhance the CIA. Focus has been on CIA/QIAL and didn t want to confuse the marketplace Stakeholders have not been interested in public sector since it is different in every country perceptions. Could have CIA and an optional module as a specialty CRMA should not be considered a specialty but rather a core Low recognition, regions don t consider a strong link with a global certification stakeholder don t see as being relevant at local level. Focus has been on CIA/QIAL and didn t want to confuse the marketplace Stakeholders have not been interested in public sector since it is different in every country perceptions. 10

11 MEDIUM SIZE AFFILIATES Internal auditor in both private and public sectors do not know their role so they do not know how to market themselves. Focus is on the CIA and do not promote the other certifications. Some people do not complete the CIA certification parts because they are afraid to fail. Affiliate level, they do not promote the other certifications because the focus is on CIA. Want the IIA Global to lobby internationally on behalf of the profession. CIA is more open at the entry level to help with self-promotion but not for someone at Senior level because afraid to fail CGAP is a big opportunity for promotion but need help from IIA to regulate in the public sector because if not mandatory progress is slow. CRMA impression that it was given without exam (grandfathered) so it is not value as much because does not feel it was earned. More/ refresh marketing and promotion after people pass the CIA to qualify for other Certifications give them incentives IIA to lobby with key groups to mandate one of the certifications (i.e. PCAOB). CCSA is not really tied to Internal Auditor so should promote differently. Need more info about the CGAP to promote qualifications for this certification may prevent affiliate in their region to apply if there is no internal auditor working in the public sector. May be perceived as too US-based. Weak demand driven by irrelevant content. No marketing. Stakeholders have no idea what they are. Leaders of chapter as well have no idea what they are. CFSA benefit more exclusive and shows competency. No extra work CPEs for CFSA. Out of date content. Lack of promotion by global. Need to work with affiliates collectively to promote certification. Ecuador no interest in certifications. CIA in Latvia competition. Need to educate stakeholders of the value. CGAP no local country needs for that content. Needs to be localized/regionalized. Local language needed. Translation is expensive. Marketing and awareness. If don t pass first time discount on 2nd attempt. Pricing model is a challenge for exams and materials, cost is too high. Local language needed. Translation is expensive. Create alliances with other professional bodies to develop specialized certificates. Need to define our position on certifications. The demand for specialty certifications is generally weak for different reasons. The content for specialties is irrelevant and/or outdated. Also, we are not being pushing to promote these specialty certifications. Also, the English version of the CGAP is a problem. CFSA is low level to banks. We have an international and US versions of CFSA. CGAP is different issues. Government is usual level, so may need two levels (basic and higher level). Has to be cost-sensitive, very basic. CGAP is 60% CIA. Only additional 40% is government related. There is value seen for the CIA and some value for the CRMA, however the value for other specialty exams in not seen especially in smaller countries and smaller organizations. The challenge is there are other competing certifications in some of the other areas (especially financial area). 11

12 There is no recognition for the specialty designations therefore difficult to create a demand especially with the costs of exams and no increase in salary. Would be best to focus on the profession and CIA/CRMA, include some of the specialty information in the overall exam, eliminating specialty exams. Splitting the CIA exam into different parts with a separate part focused on a specialty. People would chose to take the CIA where the first two/three parts are the same for everyone, then a third/fourth part to specialize in finance, technology, government, etc. Nobody at table has CGAP or CFSA. CIA is the flagship and is enough. Specialty certifications may limit people go to different industries. RM is growing quickly. Other certifications CCSA, CFSA, CGAP is not interested. Certifications are like products. Marketing of specialties is important. Market doesn t believe CGAP as they are not relevant. CGAP is irrelevant. Governments have limited budget and they pay less money to their employees. It is impossible for CGAP to catch up. CFSA content is similar like CIA, which the IIA should focus on. CCSA is a skill and should not be a certification CPE reporting fees for multiple certification holders. We should only focus on CIA. Affiliates don t really understand the specialties. They are unable to articulate the value of any of the specialties. Lots of concerns about the complexity and difficulty of communicating to members. They don t see that the specialties give any sort of an edge to holders. In order for these to be effective, there would need to be a direct relation between obtaining the certification and the benefit to the member (job advancement, etc.). Overall lack of awareness of these programs. No additional value. Don t even have enough CIA s yet so why other certifications. Questions 3. Would repositioning the current CGAP and CFSA certifications to assessment-based certificates with local customization be more appealing to internal auditors in your country or territory? Yes/No, and why? SMALLER AFFILIATES Yes, would work well, quicker and good for millennials More people would be willing to take it because it is quicker Less confidence in a local certification than in a global certification When does it expire? How does one maintain the certification? Good, especially in the financial sector. Much easier because it would be like case study. Actual subjects that the internal auditor work with. The current is shallow. 12

13 Exam translations in more Local contexts, how do we modify or customize the certification more fitting to different cultures and countries? Not as famous as the CIA Could we promote the special certifications to the second line of defense? A lot of individuals just want to put the letters next to their name on their business card. Better controls on the people got the certifications. There are people writing that they got a certification on LinkedIn and such but they don t have it. How do we handle that? Although the concept in interesting, the execution is not practical. The administration and customizations may fall on the affiliate; there s already limited resources, time and expertise. Fear that the security of exam/assessment could be compromised. In the Middle East, The CFSA provides an international benchmarking, therefore it is not recommended to customize by country or region. However, the CGAP could have greater applicability if customized. CGAP is available in Spanish. There s the potential for regional collaboration, although it would be difficult due to limited resources and applicability to local governments. In smaller, developing countries, these certifications are currently not a priority. Threshold should be the same, if there are customizations. Comprehensive training with local content would be more valuable. The structure needs to take into account realities of the local region, so yes ABCs could be attractive. Customization would help. Not a black and white answer. Should we have a one-size-fits-all? Should it be customized? Need to make an inventory of the local regions. Need to be more comprehensive in our analysis. Certification is intended to reduced variability, create consistency. If you support localization could it reduce consistency and make standards benchmarking more difficult? To manage multiple certifications, it will require resources to manage that. Will IIA have the resources to manage that variability? What are the purpose, needs, and requirements? Why should we assume differences in terms or region, cultures, etc.? Should we be designing certificates based on principles and less on local rules? We have a principles based syllabus to CRMA and CFSA. Is there a way to blend? No consistency, too many resources. Will fall on affiliates to do it, with little support from global. CFSA is not equivalent to the CIA. Certificate would add value. But how can you do certification if you haven t shown competency. Suggest having prerequisite of Part 1 CIA is critical for before you can get a certificate. Certificates could have value/appeal in some areas as a developmental process, but there needs to be some measure (prerequisite?) of the practitioner s base ability/competency. Certificates may hurt efforts to provide consistency if not principles based. Could diminish value. Localizing certificate content could prove too resource-intensive on local affiliates without global support. Certificate would be less valuable. In Latin America, certificates are valuable. 13

14 LARGER AFFILIATES Get rid of it, focus on the CIA. It would not increase the demand. Common supervision/regulations in Europe. Might be a demand on the CFSA due to this. Occupational certification include a training component (for both certifications) then it might work in South Africa. Cost/Benefits. To customize the certifications for every IIA. Sustainability. Difficulty with maintaining the Certification locally. Create levels. One with local content and then go to the global certification. Presently it has an American bias. Would require Government support in order to create demand for the certifications within the audit profession. The underpinning of the training for the certification. Government requires highly trained auditors in Government sector. Some value but uncertainty because it would require significant level of coordination, local resources and there s a risk that members might shop around for the easiest test. If localized, challenge might be to keep the quality and level of the certifications. The ABC basic program provided by The IIA that provides the foundation on which to add the local syllabus will help successfully customize the specialties value. Certifications are not sufficiently recognized and legitimate to be significant in the countries. In order to increase the demand for certifications, recognition at the local level is the first step to take. It could if we could add local elements Increasing the recognition amongst targeted stakeholders. CGAP yes, but CFSA not. CGAP must be localized. CFSA doesn t need local customization. This area should continue to be an Industry certification. CFSA keep it as universal certification, but offer the training. CGAP still important for public sector, but doesn t need to be a certification. CFSA must remain as an industry certification this is very different from CGAP. No advantage in changing either one. CGAP must be add on to CIA. CFSA must be regionalized. CFSA keep it as is. CGAP works in countries where there is nothing else. CGAP needs more translation because it s unrealistic to expect public sector employees to pass the exam in English. CGAP localized. CFSA keep it universal (as much as possible) allow some customization for local regulations. For CGAP, this makes sense because the knowledge needs to be localized. Candidates should pass CIA first, and then take the certificate training to demonstrate they can work in the public sector in their country or region 14

15 CFSA should remained as a certification because it is industry specific, and may only need to be regionalized. To maintain the rigor a regional-based specialty may be better suited for an assessment-based delivery as opposed to a certification to connect to a global market. Want to demonstrate basic IA skills detail knowledge by sector can be achieved in other ways such as training. MEDIUM SIZE AFFILIATES Yes- not popular in Europe in general because regulations are very specific. Not customized for this region of the world. Yes but should be centrally managed from IIA Global to ensure that it is not devalued/lose credibility. Must keep as a certification as opposed to downgrade to assessment based certificate program. Tailor some of the questions to specific countries/regions but still keep as a certification. Must look on how to evaluate and execute the filtering of questions from affiliates to IIA or IIA down to affiliates Local pool of general questions and specific questions from region but IIA should still review. May be an issue if it downgraded to a certificate for those who currently hold the certification. Must maintain the credibility/value of the exams but add localize questions specific to the regions. Latvia yes; understanding local dynamics and working with affiliates to market. Generic content from global and local/regional content to develop? Competency and capacity will be challenges for local affiliates. Need to tap into local SMEs to build content. Difficult to get volunteers to develop or review content. Smaller affiliates won t have time, competencies, staff, etc. Pricing could be an issue. Enhanced marketing of outdated content. Current content and relevancy are key issues. Creating value for the specialized certifications. Emerging issues. Prioritization will be different by affiliate and region. CFSA should keep and market correctly. CGAP good in some markets. Need clarity on ABC. Can t describe the benefits. Need transparency on outcomes and actions reached. Understanding local dynamics and working with affiliates to create local content and then market is important. However, competency and capacity will be challenging for local affiliates especially smaller affiliates. Need enhanced marketing, and content is outdated. Current content and relevancy are key issues. Need to create value for the specialized certifications and include emerging issues. Should keep CFSA and market correctly. CGAP good in some markets. Need clarity on ABC model. Can t describe the benefits. CGAP and CFSA need a good re-fresh and grandfathering. There could be a market for the CGAP for entry level, but still need for CGAP at higher level. Prefer only higher level focused exams for CFSA. The CGAP and CFSA need to be more relevant. Local SIA has training that is more value than our CGAP. The problem isn t what you call it, if it isn t an extension of the CIA, it is a challenge to create the value and demand for it. It is easier to sell the value of the CIA, versus specialties. 15

16 The challenge is to demonstrate the importance/value of the certifications to government and organizations to obtain support of and requirements for them. Flexibility to customize the exams/certifications to the needs of the local regions may help increase the value and demand. Issue is creating a demand for members wanting to take the specialty exams or if they have a specialty exam, they don t see the value for the CIA. Discussed building the foundation by having the CIA as members move from one area of focus to another. Focus needs to be on a few certifications versus many with additional specialty focus to be added. (CIA+++) If you possess CIA, why would you need CCSA? IAs may gain confidence after the ABC so they can take CIA afterwards. The IIA will need to set up a global model so there is consistency among affiliates. We need to respect the current CGAP and CFSA holders. Diploma may be better for government sector. Very good proposal because it addresses local needs. Regulators may see more value than current CGAP and CFSA. Be cautious and respectful to the current certification holders General agreement that the ABC model is a better approach Lots of question on how it would be done Still have to resolve how these are valuable people. Still would need stronger marketing and advocacy to build demand Need to be careful on confusion created by translation of certification and certificate Price sensitivity around cost of training Whether it s Certification or ABC, The IIA must commit and put the resources (including marketing and advocacy) to support and grow them globally. There was a consensus this hasn t been done with the specialties to date. Questions 4: Considering that the CIA already covers risk management, how should the CRMA be differentiated from the CIA? What can be changed to make the CRMA more attractive to internal auditors in your country or territory? SMALLER AFFILIATES Why not have CIRA combine CIA and CRMA; it is critical and need both At this time, risk has become mainstream. CIA and CRMA have separate strengths. CIA is mainstream internal auditor. Talk about the differences are between CIA and CRMA; CRMA is wider appeal to 2LOD Assurance will be done by robots; so focus on risk. Focus on Enterprise risk management and COSO. What is a risk and what is an event? Excellent certification. 16

17 Other organizations are promoting their risk management certifications. Structured and more attractiveness. COSO Certificate instead of the CRMA in financial organizations. Can CIA include more risk management that are more practical? The CRMA should be marketed as a complement of the CIA, not as a replacement. Have we really tested their competency in governance before we measure competency in risk management? Developed CRMA based on a faulty order of the concept, but that s history. There are broader questions. What should be the path/progression of expertise development? Not a comparison of CIA versus CRMA. When an auditor comes into a department, what does she bring in? CIA vs CRMA, just two elements of a boarder issue of internal auditor skills development. Need to rethink and clarify the journey of competency development of a professional internal auditor. If we want to make CRMA fit in to CIA, we need to examine broader question of a full journey of an internal auditor s development. Manager wants his problem to be solve. First step in the journey is an ability to solve problems. I m more concerned with problems than with risk. The approach for creating stand-alone certifications is fundamentally flawed in that is lacks a comprehensive strategy based on the evolution of an internal auditor s skills journey. Discussions about making a CRMA more attractive should not be based on how it is different from CIA, but on whether the practitioner has the base competencies to be certified in that area. It s confusing. CIA should absorb CRMA. CIA would have an internal audit scope, while CRMA would have a risk scope. CGAP would be improved with localization. Promote our Certifications to other professional body associations. (OECD) LARGER AFFILIATES Low maturity -> the content is very basic. Tweak the content to add value for internal auditors when collaborating. The internal auditor s job is risk management! Target group -> Who is our main target audience for the CRMA? What will happen with CRMA in regard of the COSO certificate? Key: How do we sell it to market? Opportunist, we go where the demand is vs long term focus on CIA. Kill your darlings! Why put in resources. Long term projection, where are we in 10 years. It will go past CRMA, the impact of moving from the CRMA (special certifications) won t be critical. BUT we need a strategy and communication plan for this. Faze it out. Let the certified keep the certs. With the institutes support for CPE but no new certified. Demand on passing CIA part 1. Why 17

18 Merge between CRMA and COSO Certification (certification in progress?) CRMA is perceived for senior levels persons, CIA is perceived as basic entry level. COSO is in Spanish and it s preferred for Spanish speakers. Confusion among the certifications, degree of difficulty and value. If localized, challenge might be to keep the quality and level of the certifications. Confusion among the certifications, degree of difficulty and value. In order to make CRMA more value, it needs to be more rigorous. No one of the countries around the table place any value on CRMA, at least for new comings. CRMA provides no added value. This is an assurance not an auditing certification. This is more for second line of defense, but important for CIA to expand knowledge. Auditors must have a CIA. To make it more attractive, we need more awareness and differentiation. CIA content of RM is not extensive. Maybe move content to CIA and retire CRMA. COSO is planning to have a certification that will be competition for CRMA. Wrong question, is there a need for the CRMA? Does it serve a purpose? See overlap with CIA part 3 unless it is aimed at Risk Management. Risk Management is a trendy topic and all IA need to understand risk. Some are considering a certification in Governance the bigger umbrella Perhaps the grandfathering process for CRMA devalued the credibility CIA is often considered the entrance to the profession and the CRMA is for a more experienced audience. Who is the audience? If IIA is moving into 2LOD then CRMA would be more valuable. Understand the value of the CIA before moving on to the CRMA Similar to doing a degree and you major in something and minor in something else. Confusion in the marketplace how you handle/manage the risk management function. What should come first? CIA as entry level then CRMA Risk Management is a trendy topic and all IA need to understand risk. MEDIUM SIZE AFFILIATES Emphasis for CRMA certifications to be more involved/tailored for the second line of defense. Marketing and promoting CRMA to the people who are in the second line of defense. New strategy to tell that CRMA does not required to be an Internal Auditor Market certification messages differently / strategy use media, twitter, LinkedIn because new generation consume information/news differently (Millennials). Shorter messages bite size consumption Less attention span. Consider specialized types/different specialties of CRMA based on the type of risk management content. Risk management general content CIA global. CRMA specialized for practical content for risk management. Be more specific. No Spanish material for CRMA. Content weak and boring. More focused, example based, remove duplication from content. 18

19 Can we leverage other associations risk management materials. How do we make the CRMA distinct? CIA has theoretical aspects and CRMA focused with practical content, case studies, etc. COSO ERM a good book. Leverage partnerships with other associations not the big 4. We do not see a problem with CIA and CRMA remaining separate. IA and risk managers are different today. CRMA can be targeted for non-internal auditors. It needs to be separate. Mostly IA s are taking CRMA (70%/30%). IA needs to know about RM to give assurance. Young professionals seem to be more interesting in CRMA in Korea. We are not promoting the CRMA enough. CRMA is offered only in English. RM is basic. CRMA is seen as a good certification for internal auditors to show knowledge in risk management. CRMA is more for people can assess risk management. Risk management is a much broader audience. If we want to target non-internal auditors, much broader than assurance. This is why it is weak. Non-auditors are taking it because there are no other risk management certifications. Discussed the issue of having the focus of the CRMA to be on the second-line of defense and challenge of interest for those not interested in moving to the second-line. Discussed having all internal auditors required to have CIA and then having the ability to add specialties. Challenge would be closing the door on those that just want to obtain a specialty exam and not obtain the CIA. Promoting one brand (CIA) with the specializations underneath, could assist to create a higher demand. Create a questionnaire for the affiliates to send to the stakeholders in the local regions to see what their interest/prospective would be in regards to their preferences. Make the CRMA an extension of the CIA or a master s degree for internal auditors focused on risk management. Make CRMA a pathway to CIA This is the certification that is not designed to serve RM professionals, but for IAs The IIA should provide more training, contents, especially guidance for RM The IIA should market CRMA better IA needs to provide RM assurance, CRMA is the certification for it. Differentiate CRMA with certifications offered by other organizations. The primary target of CRMA is internal auditors because only IA provides objective assurance of RM. Marketing CRMA better on top of CIA. IA needs to provide RM assurance, CRMA is the certification for it. The primary target of CRMA is internal auditors because only IA provides objective assurance of RM. Question on why anyone would need a CRMA. There are a lot of certifications in risk management. Who is it for? Perception it is more for management, but there is confusion. For internal auditors, CRMA is redundant to CIA. There isn t demand in many countries. Some affiliates also serve risk management already. Maybe CRMA is better for second line of defense, but this isn t really The IIA s space. CIA should be the flagship and should cover sufficient risk management. CRMA adds confusion. 19