Very interesting topic.
I don't want to come over too defeatist but there is a wide range of opinion on so may topics and combine this with the fact that within our area of expertise, there are strongly held views which sometmes do not always agree, just the idea of creating a set of terms and glossary that we all agree on would be a major task in itself. (and who would ratify this and update it), major challenges ahead but good to discuss.
PS just as with the report, technical terms have to be created according to who the "end user" is. A definition of IP addess that is suitable for a client within an IT Audit team will not be suitable for a member of the public within a jury.
Just a brief comment as I'm short on time this morning. A useful word which has now come up in a few posts is "format" (or "formatting") - this is precisely the word I should have used myself and might have avoided at least some degree of confusion. I think a lot of the concerns seem to be centred around issues which are unrelated to formatting (and by formatting I suppose I mean the standardized use of named and numbered sections, sub-sections etc.) I do feel there's enough commonality between virtually all cases to develop some kind of formal structure which is useful to everyone concerned - including us - without in any way restricting the way we work or the quality of our reporting. Perhaps some concrete examples would be useful. Equally, examples of what people see as the dangers of such a system would be useful too.
Jamie, I usually only lurk, but since this is a topic near and dear to my heart…
Although I'm a fervent believer that the quality of reporting in our industry has much room for improvement, and while I did indeed put a ton of work into a report template that I shared with all attendees of my CEIC session, I see no possibility that standardization is feasible.
First, there are just too many variables between cases and clients and courts. Second, while I do think there's value in advancing the state of our industry as a whole, reality is that reporting skills vary widely and can definitely serve as competitive differentiators. Third, I'm skeptical that there exists the drive to pull off something like this, especially now when the industry is expending so much energy on the more immediate issue of PI licensing in several states.
BTW, I've been a writer for many years, which is why reporting is near and dear. I've published around 50 articles in national magazines and reference works, etc. My specialty is making technology understandable for non-geeks, and this was the primary focus of my CEIC session on reporting.
Hi Jerry,
Many thanks for your message, great to hear your thoughts on this.
With regard to variables between cases/clients/courts, I fully appreciate the point. I don't think it's impossible to address the issues involved but clearly there has to be some kind of balance between flexibility on the one hand and practical benefit on the other. Is that balance achievable? I certainly think it could be.
Reporting as a competitive differentiator is an interesting one. Partly I see standardization as helping to raise the bar, sure, but another major benefit has to be interoperability between all parties involved in a case. More fundamentally though, I don't view opposition to raising standards across the board due to competitive concerns as being a valid reason for not supporting those efforts. That's not to say that I don't understand the logic behind such a position, of course, although I think the case is often overstated (in the sense that standardizing on a common reporting format will have little impact on the quality of the contents therein). Bottom line - I'm skeptical that standardizing on common sections headings is going to level the playing field overnight.
As far as the drive to work on such a project is concerned, again it's a point well taken. There is no doubt in my mind that there are those within the industry who are deeply committed to raising standards and willing to work hard to make that a reality. On the other hand there are those who, for whatever reasons, may oppose those efforts. I think the outcome of that struggle will say a lot about the state of the industry as a whole.
Jamie
Jamie, you may have already explained and I missed it, but exactly what do you propose to standardize? The structure and sections? The manner in which certain commonly included information is presented?
What does the Jamie Template look like? -)
I previously said
I think a lot of the concerns seem to be centred around issues which are unrelated to formatting (and by formatting I suppose I mean the standardized use of named and numbered sections, sub-sections etc.) I do feel there's enough commonality between virtually all cases to develop some kind of formal structure which is useful to everyone concerned - including us - without in any way restricting the way we work or the quality of our reporting.
So, in response to
exactly what do you propose to standardize? The structure and sections? The manner in which certain commonly included information is presented?
my answer would be "yes" to "structure and sections" but in answer to the second question it really depends what we mean by "the manner in which…" which it seems to me is open to wider interpretation.
What does the Jamie Template look like?
Thankfully, there isn't one. I think the only way to develop a suitable template is through a process of discussion and consultation with all parties involved (both within and outside CF).
In previous posts I have written that as far as standardized reports we as CF examiners/investigators could take some directions from CPAs. For example the AICPA has very specific requirements as to what must be included and in what order the information is included in an Audit Opinion. There are also rules governing who can sign an Opinion.
For all those concerned about competitive advantage in the way their reports are structured, I would encourage you to read a few Opinions, you will immediately see that although structure is the same and certain verbiage is required there is a great deal of difference in the quality of the Opinions and the work required to create the opinion.
What you get from standardization is an easy way for everyone to read the Opinion, you always know what order items are to be presented which is especially beneficial for comparing Opinions. Laypeople benefit because if they read more than one Opinion (say year to year) they can always find the information they are looking for without having to hunt through an entire report.
So for me "structure and sections" and "the manner in which certain commonly included information is presented" (i.e. why should there be more than one way to list the components in a system?) are important. Standardization will lend increasing credibility to our profession.
Counter-point?