When international standards were discussed in interviews, an interpretation made by auditors was that the implementation of international standards equaled the implementation and use of audit manuals. In interviews, the audit manual was explained as functioning as guidance for them as auditors. Their daily work was conducted according to working papers, which they filled in and the audit manual was used when there was uncertainty or where the workneeded clarification.
The OAG in Botswana over the years has introduced several different manuals in the office, starting with the manual produced in cooperation with the British National Audit Office and the INTOSAI Development Initiative (IDI) at the start of the 1990s. To implement the manual in the office, a few people were sent on a “training the
trainers” course for a few weeks,where they were given training material. When they returned to their OAG they were supposed to train the rest of the auditors on how to use the audit manual. The British manual was never implemented in the office, an auditor who had been trained as a trainer explained that when he returned from the course he had to carry out his normal assignment, and there was no room for training the other auditors at the office.128
Within the development cooperation project between the OAG and the Swedish National Audit Office (SNAO), between 1992 and 1998, another audit manual was produced. While some auditors claimed that there were courses and workshops at the time, as a part of the implementation of the manual, others argued they were just handed the manual without any further explanation or training. In a similar manner as the British, the Swedish manual was not used at the OAG. There were various explanations for why the Swedish manual was never used in the office. One explanation was the lack of training, where only a few auditors attended workshops on the manual, others were handed the manuals without any further explanations of how to handle them.129 The auditors who attended
the workshops however argued that this was not enough training and that it was difficult for them actually to change anything in the office after the training.130 One of the auditors added that when auditors at
the office attended workshops, they would agree on everything said there. However, when they returned to work, nothing changed they would just continue to work the way they used to.131 Additionally,
when difficulties in implementing the manuals were discussed with another auditor in management position, he advanced the same arguments. He argued that the auditors usually agreed while they were participating in a workshop, even though they did not understand why they should change their work methodology. He added that training a few people in the office was not especially effective. The 128 Interview 24
129 Interview 22 130 Interview 17, 24
few trained auditors would face difficulties when trying to implement the new methodologies in the rest of the office.132 In corporation with
the AFROSAI-E, the ambition in the office had been to adopt and implement a new audit manual in the office. In 2007, two teams with six auditors in each were taken through the new audit methodology, in a pilot study. The two teams in due course were to train the other auditors in the office. The group held two workshops between 2007 and 2010, where auditors in the office were taken through the audit process, in accordance with the new manual.
The manual was officially adopted by the OAG in 2008 and was originally a generic document produced by AFROSAI-E, which was supposed to be customized by each SAI. The customization of the manual was described by the auditors at the OAG, as changes to minor aspects, such as changing the name on the outside of the manual to OAG Botswana as well as referring to their own legislation in the manual. In addition, smaller things in the engagement letters and the checklist questionnaires were also mentioned as examples of customization.133 Another difference between the generic AFROSAI-
E manual and the circumstances in Botswana was the accounting system, the Botswana government uses a cash based system, which meant the procedures in the manual, which are intended for an accrual system, were not possible to use.
For auditors who work with central government, the AFROSAI-E manual has been problematic, since it was designed to audit accounts on a ministry level. In Botswana there are not separate accounts for each ministry, the Accountant General only produces accounts for the whole government. Hence, the OAG could only produce a certificate for the whole government. In the practical work, it based the audit risk analysis, sampling etc. on departments, rotating between the departments. An auditor claimed that they could change the approach and conduct audits based on a ministry level, but they could not produce an audit certificate for the ministries as required by 132 Interview 21
the manual.134 In the office, there were various opinions regarding the
new approach. While one auditor argued that the ministries were too large for the taking appropriate sample sizes, another auditor claimed that the new approach was better, since it allowed another level of analysis to be done and they would be able to “pick the big things and not the small issues like we did before”.135
Moreover, audit on the ministry level implies that the contact person for the auditors will be highest administrative officer at the ministry, the Permanent Secretary. Some interviewees argued that they did not feel comfortable disturbing such a high official, and that the Permanent Secretary was a “very busy man.”136 They argued
that it was better in practice to have contact with the director for each department.137 An auditor claimed he would continue with
this practice despite the manual’s prescriptions or what others in the office did.138 This approach by some auditors, keeping their old way
of working, was argued by others hindered implementation of the manual and had led to an inconsistency of audit methodologies used in the office.139
As illustrated above, the office through the years has tried to implement audit manuals and change its audit methodology accordingly. It is difficult to determine to what extent the AFROSAI- E manual has been implemented in the office, since the auditors argued that the procedures according to the manual were followed in some cases and not in others. Their continuous effort to implement manuals based on the international standards, however, may be regarded as supporting what could be expected from them according to the literature on organizations. In addition, the adjustments (customizations) to the manual they claimed they had to make to suit their local circumstances were mainly smaller issues. Whether the standards should be changed to suit their national arrangements 134 Interview 22
135 Interview 33 136 Interview 25 137 Interview 36, 25 138 Interview 25
or if they should instead change their national arrangements to suit the standards differed among the auditors, and there were auditors supporting both approaches, thus supporting neither the development nor the organization literature. However, the reasons for not changing some of the procedures were given in more practical terms, for instance that it was easier to discuss with the directors of the departments than with the Permanent Secretary and that it was difficult to take audit samples of units as large as ministries. Thus, what development scholars argue primarily needs to be adjusted to, such as resources, competence and cultural features does not appear to apply to the case with the customization of the audit manual.
However, has confirmation for the line taken by development scholars, the problems the OAG has had with implementation of the various manuals over the years could be interpreted as an underestimation of the training needed to change work
methodologies in the office (World Bank 2005). To some extent, this could be due to limited resources but considering the various donors involved in development projects it could rather be a result of poor design and a limited understanding of how the auditors needed to be trained to be able to work according to the new methodologies. In the efforts to implement the manuals, a few workshops were held for a few auditors who then were expected to teach the rest of the auditors and change the work procedures in the whole office. This confirms the arguments of the World Bank (2005), i.e. an important factor for explaining why many public administration reforms have failed in African countries is wrongly designed development projects. This could be understood as an explanation for why the continuous efforts and development projects at the OAG did not result in greater change in its working methodologies in accordance to the standards.