How to Reduce Costs when Complying with SOX 404

Section 404 contains the most onerous and most costly requirements you’ll ever encounter in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX). In this article, we?ll take a closer look at the salient points of this contentious piece of legislation as it relates to IT. We?ll also explain why companies are encountering difficulties in complying with it.

Then as soon as we’ve tackled the main issues of this section and identify the pitfalls of compliance, we can then proceed with a discussion of what successful CIOs have done to eliminate those difficulties and consequently bring down their organisation’s IT compliance costs. From this post, you can glean insights that can help you plan a cost-effective way of achieving IT compliance with SOX.

SOX 404 in a nutshell

Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, entitled Management Assessment of Internal Controls, requires public companies covered by the Act to submit an annual report featuring an assessment of their company?s internal controls.

This ?internal control report? should state management’s responsibility in establishing/maintaining an adequate structure and a set of procedures for internal control over your company?s financial reporting processes. It should also contain an assessment of the effectiveness of those controls as of the end of your most recent fiscal year.

Because SOX also requires the public accounting firm that conducts your audit reports to attest to and report on your assessments, you can’t just make baseless claims regarding the effectiveness of your internal controls. As a matter of fact, you are mandated by both SEC and PCAOB to follow widely accepted control frameworks like COSO and COBIT. This framework will serve as a uniform guide for the internal controls you set up, the assessments you arrive at, and the attestation your external auditor reports on.

Why compliance of Section 404 is costly

Regardless which of the widely acceptable control frameworks you end up using, you will always be asked to document and test your controls. These activities can consume a considerable amount of man-hours and bring about additional expenses. Even the mere act of studying the control framework and figuring out how to align your current practices with it can be very tricky and can consume precious time; time that can be used for more productive endeavours.

Of course, there are exceptions. An organisation with highly centralised operations can experience relative ease and low costs while implementing SOX 404. But if your organisation follows a largely decentralised operation model, e.g. if you still make extensive use of spreadsheets in all your offices, then you’ll surely encounter many obstacles.

According to one survey conducted by FEI (Financial Executives International), an organisation that carried out a series of SOX-compliance-related surveys since the first year of SOX adoption, respondents with centralised operations enjoyed lower costs of compliance compared to those with decentralised operations. For example, in 2007, those with decentralised operations spent 30.1 % more for compliance than those with centralised operations.

The main reason for this disparity lies in the disorganised and complicated nature of spreadsheet systems.

Read why spreadsheets post a burden when complying with SOX and other regulations.

Unfortunately, a large number of companies still rely heavily on spreadsheets. Even those with expensive BI (Business Intelligence) systems still use spreadsheets as an ad-hoc tool for data processing and reporting.

Because compliance with Section 404 involves a significant amount of fixed costs, smaller companies tend to feel the impact more. This has been highlighted in the ?Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Smaller Public Companies? published on April 23, 2006. In that report, which can be downloaded from the official website of the US Securities and Exchange Commission, it was shown that:

  • Companies with over $5 Billion revenues spent only about 0.06% of revenues on Section 404 implementation
  • Companies with revenues between $1B – $4.9B spent about 0.16%
  • Companies with revenues between $500M – $999M spent about 0.27%
  • Companies with revenues between $100M – $499M spent about 0.53%
  • Companies with revenues less than $100M spent a whopping 2.55% on Section 404

Therefore, not only can you discern a relationship between the size of a company and the amount that the company ends up spending for SOX 404 relative to its revenues, but you can also clearly see that the unfavourable impact of Section 404 spending is considerably more pronounced in the smallest companies. Hence, the smaller the company is, the more crucial it is for that company to find ways that can bring down the costs of Section 404 implementation.

How to alleviate costs of section 404

If you recall the FEI survey mentioned earlier, it was shown that organisations with decentralised operations usually ended up spending more for SOX 404 implementation than those that had a more centralized model. Then in the ?Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Smaller Public Companies?, it was also shown that public companies with the smallest revenues suffered a similar fate.

Can we draw a line connecting those two? Does it simply mean that large spending on SOX affects two sets of companies, i.e., those that have decentralised operations and those that are small? Or can there be an even deeper implication? Might it not be possible that these two sets are actually one and the same?

From our experience, small companies are less inclined to spend on server based solutions compared to the big ones. As a result, it is within this group of small companies where you can find a proliferation of spreadsheet systems. In other words, small companies are more likely to follow a decentralised model. Spreadsheets were not designed to implement strict control features, so if you want to apply a control framework on a spreadsheet-based system, it won’t be easy.

For example, how are you going to conduct testing on every single spreadsheet cell that plays a role in financial reporting when the spreadsheets involved in the financial reporting process are distributed across different workstations in different offices in an organisation with a countrywide operation?

It’s really not a trivial problem.

Based on the FEI survey however, the big companies have already found a solution – employing a server-based system.

Typical server based systems, which of course espouse a centralised model, already come with built-in controls. If you need to modify or add more controls, then you can do so with relative ease because practically everything you need to do can be carried out in just one place.

For instance, if you need to implement high availability or perform backups, you can easily apply redundancy in a cost-effective way – e.g. through virtualisation – if you already have a server-based system. Aside from cost-savings in SOX 404 implementation, server-based systems also offer a host of other benefits. Click that link to learn more.

Not sure how to get started on a cost-effective IT compliance initiative for SOX? You might want to read our post How To Get Started With Your IT Compliance Efforts for SOX.?

Check our similar posts

How COBIT helps you achieve SOX Compliance

First released way back in 1996, COBIT has already been around for quite a while. One reason why it never took off was because companies were never compelled to use it ? until now. Today, many CEOs and CIOs are finding it to be a vital tool for achieving SOX compliance in IT.

Thanks to SOX, COBIT (Control Objectives for Information and related Technology) is now one of the most widely accepted source of guidance among companies who have IT integrated with their accounting/financial systems. It has also gained general acceptability with third parties and regulators. But how did this happen?

Role of control frameworks in SOX compliance

You see, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, despite having clearly manifested the urgency of establishing effective internal controls, does not provide a road map for you to follow nor does it specify a yardstick to help you determine whether an acceptable mileage in the right direction has already been achieved.

In other words, if you were a CIO and you wanted to find guidance on what steps you had to take to achieve compliance, you wouldn’t be able to find the answers in the legislation itself.

That can be a big problem. Two of your main SOX compliance obligations as a CEO or CIO is to assume responsibility in establishing internal controls over financial reporting and to certify their effectiveness. After that, the external auditors are supposed to attest to your assertions. Obviously, there has to be a well-defined basis before you can make such assertions and auditors can attest to anything.

In the language of auditors, this ?well-defined basis? is known as a control framework. Simply put, once you certify the presence of adequate internal controls in your organisation, the external auditor will ask, ?What control framework did you use??

Knowing what control framework you employed will help external auditors determine how to proceed with their evaluations and tests. For your part, a control framework can serve as a guide to help you work towards specific objectives for achieving compliance. Both of you can use it as a common reference point before drawing any conclusions regarding your controls.

But there are many control frameworks out there. What should you use?

How SOX, COSO, and COBIT fit together

Fortunately, despite SOX?s silence regarding control frameworks, you aren’t left entirely to your own devices. You could actually take a hint from the SEC and PCAOB, two of the lead organisations responsible for implementing SOX. SEC and PCAOB point to the adoption of any widely accepted control framework.

In this regard, they both highly endorse COSO, a well-established internal control framework formulated by the Committee of Sponsoring Organisations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Now, I must tell you, if you’re looking specifically for instructions pertaining to IT controls, you won’t find those in COSO either.

Although COSO is the most established control framework for enterprise governance and risk management you’ll ever find (and in fact, it’s what we recommend for your general accounting processes), it lacks many IT-related details. What is therefore needed for your IT processes is a framework that, in addition to being highly aligned with COSO, also provides more detailed considerations for IT.

This is where COBIT fits the bill.

How COBIT can contribute to your regulatory compliance endeavors

COBIT builds upon and adheres with COSO while providing a finer grain of detail focused on IT. You can even find a mapping between COBIT IT processes and COSO components within the COBIT document itself.

Designed with regulatory compliance in mind, COBIT lays down a clear path for developing policies and good practice for IT control, thus enabling you to bridge the gap between control requirements, technical issues, and business risks.

Some of the components you’ll find in COBIT include:

IT control objectives

These are statements defining specific desired results that, as a whole, characterise a well-managed IT process. They come in two forms for each COBIT-defined IT process: a high-level control objective and a number of detailed control objectives. These objectives will enable you to have a sense of direction by telling you exactly what you need to aim for.

Maturity models

These are used as benchmarks that give you a relative measurement stating where your level of management or control over an IT process or high-level control objective stands. It serves as a basis for setting as-is and to-be positions and enables support for gap analysis, which determines what needs to be done to achieve a chosen level. Basically, if a control objective points you to a direction, then its corresponding maturity model tells you how far in that direction you’ve gone.

RACI charts

These charts tell you who (e.g. CEO, CFO, Head of Operations, Head of IT Administration) should be Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and Informed for each activity.

Goals and Metrics

These are sets of goals along with the corresponding metrics that allow you to measure against those goals. Goals and metrics are defined in three levels: IT goals and metrics, which define what business expects from IT; process goals and metrics, which define what the IT process should deliver to support It’s objectives; and activity goals and metrics, which measure how well the process is performing.

In addition to those, you’ll also find mappings of each process to the information criteria involved, IT resources that need to be leveraged, and the governance focus areas that are affected.

Everything is presented in a logical and manageable structure, so that you can easily draw connections between IT processes and business goals, which will in turn help you decide what appropriate governance and control is needed. Ultimately, COBIT can equip you with the right tools to maintain a cost-benefit balance as you work towards achieving SOX compliance.

The Matrix Management Structure

Organizations exploit matrix management in various ways. A company, for instance, that operates globally uses it at larger scale by giving consistent products to various countries internationally. A business entity, having many products, does not assign its people to each product full-time but assign those to different ones on a part time basis, instead. And when it comes to delivering high quality and low cost products, companies overcome industry pressures with the help of many overseeing managers. In a rapidly changing environment, organizations respond quickly by sharing information through a matrix model.

Understanding the Matrix Management Structure

A basic understanding of matrix management starts with the three key roles and responsibilities that applies in the structure.

  • Matrix Leader ? The common person above all the matrix bosses is the matrix leader. He ensures that the balance of power is maintained in the entire organization by delegating decisions and promoting collaboration among the people.
  • Matrix Managers ? The managers cooperate with each other by defining the respective activities that they are responsible for.
  • Matrix Employees – The employees have lesser direct authority but has more responsibilities. They resolve differing demands from more than one matrix managers while they work things out upwards. Their loyalty must be dual and their relationships with managers must be maintained.

Characteristics of a Matrix Structure

Here are some features that define the matrix management structure:

  • Hybrid Structure ?The matrix structure is a mix of functional and project organization. Since it is a combination of these two, matrix management is hybrid in nature.
  • Functional Manager ? When it comes to the technical phases of the project, the functional manager assumes responsibility. The manager decides on how to get the project done, delegates the tasks to the subordinates and oversees the operational parts of the organization.
  • Project Manager ? The project manager has full authority in the administrative phases, including the physical and financial resources needed to complete the project. The responsibilities of a project manager comprise deciding on what to do, scheduling the work, coordinating the activities to diverse functions and evaluating over-all project performance.
  • Specialization ?As the functional managers concentrate on the technical factors, the project managers focus on administrative ones. Thus, in matrix management, there is specialization.
  • Challenge in Unity of Command ? Companies that employs matrix management usually experience a problem when it comes to the unity of command. This is largely due to the conflicting orders from the functional and project managers.

Types of Matrix Structure

The matrix management structure can be classified according to the level of power of the project manager. Here are three distinct types of matrix structures that are widely used by organizations.

  • Weak Matrix ? The project manager has limited authority and power as the functional manager controls the budget of the project. His role is only part-time and more like a coordinator.
  • Strong Matrix ? Here, the project manager has almost all the authority and power. He controls the budget, holds the full time administrative project management and has a full time role.
  • Balanced Matrix ? In this structure type, both the project and functional managers control the budget of the project. The authority and power is shared by the two as well. Although the project manager has a full time role, he only has a part time authority for the administrative staff to report under his leadership.

Successful companies of today venture more on enhancing the abilities, skills, behavior and performances of their managers than the pursuit of finding the best physical structure. Indeed, learning the fundamentals of the matrix structure is essential to maximize its efficiency. A senior executive pointed out that one of the challenges in matrix management is not more of building a structure but in creating the matrix to the mind of the managers. This comes to say that matrix management is not just about the structure, it is a frame in the mind.

Denizon’s Business Continuity Services

Disruptions to business operations can be as catastrophic as a Hurricane Katrina or a 9/11 or as relatively trivial as a minor power outage or a planned shutdown. What ever the gravity, scope and duration the disruption has, your company should be able to handle each situation so that you can declare “business as usual” and really mean it. (more…)

Ready to work with Denizon?

Contact Us Today