Internal Audit Department System
An internal audit team running periodic audits of departments and processes, tracking findings through to full closure.
From the annual audit plan to findings closure: documented examinations, evidence-backed findings, and remediations that aren't closed before verification.
No credit card required — your project is set up with the full system in under a minute
This is the system board as you'll receive it: workflow columns and starter cards showing the first steps
How does work flow in this system?
The year starts with audit cards in the “Plan” column per the approved annual audit plan: scope, target department, risks, and period. When the audit begins, the card moves to “Examination,” where the auditor gathers evidence, runs tests, and documents working papers on it. Every issue discovered is logged as a separate card in “Finding” with a description of the condition, the criterion violated, severity, and evidence; it's handed to the concerned department and moves to “Remediation,” where they commit to a correction plan, owner, and deadline. After execution it moves to “Follow-up,” where the auditor verifies the fix actually works — not just on paper; results are then summarized in the “Report” submitted to top management and the audit committee, and the card is closed in “Closure” after the report is approved.
The Forum is the living audit archive: approved examination methodologies and work programs, findings recurring across departments that reveal systemic rather than individual flaws, and discussions of standards and precedents the team refers to. What's documented here protects audit independence: a written professional opinion, not shifting verbal impressions.
Work flows from the audit manager, who sets the plan and assigns examinations, to the auditors who execute and document, to the managers of audited departments who receive findings and remediate them on schedule; then the auditor returns to verify in “Follow-up” — accepting no finding's closure on a mere promise, only on evidence of correction. The audit manager submits reports to top management and the audit committee periodically.
Who does what?
The operational roles in this system and each role's responsibility in daily work — assign them to your team as-is or adapt them to your reality.
Internal Audit Manager
Sets and approves the annual audit plan in “Plan,” assigns examinations to auditors, reviews reports before they go to the audit committee, and approves finding closures.
Auditors
Execute examinations and document working papers on the cards, draft findings backed by evidence and severity ratings, and verify remediations in “Follow-up.”
Audited Department Manager
Facilitates auditors' access to records, receives their department's findings in “Remediation” and commits to a correction plan and date, uploading execution evidence to the card.
Reporting Coordinator
Compiles examination results and drafts the periodic report in “Report,” tracking overdue remediation deadlines and flagging them before they fall due.
What's prepared for you from day one?
System units
- Tasks — A kanban board with workflow columns and execution cards
- Forum — Documented discussions in organized sections — decisions and knowledge that never get lost
Forum sections (4)
- Audit Methodologies & ProgramsApproved work programs and checklists for each audit scope — one updated version the whole team works from.
- Recurring Findings & Flaw PatternsFindings that recur across different departments, revealing systemic flaws that deserve root-cause treatment rather than one-off fixes.
- Standards & Professional PrecedentsRegulations, professional standards, and precedents from similar cases — a reference that settles professional judgment calls within the team.
- General DiscussionDepartment work topics that don't fit the sections above.
«Working Rules for This System» — Pinned in the forum
1. No audit outside the approved plan except with a documented mandate from the audit committee attached to the card. 2. Every finding is backed by evidence, the criterion violated, and a severity rating — a finding without evidence is not delivered. 3. Methodologies and professional precedents are documented in the Forum; what isn't written carries no weight in professional disagreements. 4. No finding is closed until the auditor verifies the remediation in “Follow-up” with actual evidence. 5. The team's independence is a red line: any pressure to alter or delay a finding is documented and escalated to the audit committee immediately.
Systems similar to this one
Ready? Your first project is two minutes away
Create your free workspace now, and invite your team before the day is over.