Article Preview
Top1. Introduction
The investment process is one of the most important operations conducted by managers. It contains a series of steps, with the original project proposal, investment appraisal, selection (investment decision), implementation, completion, and finally, the post-audit (Lefley, 2016). Baig et al. (2020) state that there are four stages before the project selection: idea generation, strategic planning, analysis, and risk evaluation, with the end critical post-audit stage. This last, post-audit stage is often ignored by organisations and is also less discussed in the literature (Lefley, 2019; Morgan & Tang, 1993). Soares et al. (2007, p 22) argue that the empirical literature on the subject of post-audits “within the corporate context is scarce” and that one of the reasons for this scarcity certainly has to do with the confidentiality imposed by private firms on their own evaluations”. Earlier research tends to focus on the prior post-audit stage, i.e., the ‘investment decision’ stage (Burns & Walker, 2009; Emmanuel et al., 2010; Galli, 2020; Lefley, 2004; Lefley & Sarkis, 2013), with the project management literature, focusing, to some extent, on the ‘implementation’ stage (Joslin & Müller, 2015). However, the authors believe that the project evaluation model proposed by Lefley & Sarkis (2013) will, through its multi-aspect approach and transparency, facilitate the post-audit of capital projects.
This exploratory study's main objective is to identify CZ companies' post-audit practices and obtain opinions on various post-audit issues. It also seeks to assess if these practices mirror those adopted by more developed economies.
Post-audits are a formal procedure (based on written guidelines) aimed at comparing the benefits derived from a project with the pre-investment appraisal estimates and are conducted after the completion stage of the project (Lefley, 2016). Post-audits relate to a post-implementation review of achieved benefits (Farbey et al., 1999). The literature (Schindler & Eppler, 2003) on the post-audit framework suggests that an audit team is required to answer five essential questions:
- •
What was supposed to happen?
- •
What actually happened?
- •
Why were there differences?
- •
What can you learn from this experience?
- •
What should be done differently in the future, and by whom?
A post-audit framework should include at least three elements (Lefley, 2016):
- •
Objectives: Control, learning, and evaluation.
- •
Core variables: Establishing a post-audit team, project selection, post-audit timing, number of audits, documentation, information (to be evaluated), organisational culture (level of management support, how and to whom results should be communicated, etc.).
- •
Action: Diffusion of post-audit findings, learning from both positive and negative outcomes, and management decision-making improvement.
“Post-audit is an all-important phase of system life cycle, yet it is the most omitted or haphazardly done” (Udo, 1993, p. 27). “Post-completion auditing is a system of control which is both part of the capital budgeting system and also a regulator of it” (Neale, 1995, p. 17).