Monday, October 26, 2009
NEWS: Windows 7 Certification
I'm at the CCH User Conference 2009 and this morning I attended a session entitled "Microsoft's New Windows 7 - Considerations". The best piece of information was given at the end. A Windows 7 certification chart was shown which stated the compatibility (or planned compatibility) of each CCH product. Engagement's was slated for 12/9/2009 when version 6.1 is to be released.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
NEWS: Windows 7 Compatibility, Again
I just checked out the Windows 7 Compatibility Center and saw that Microsoft is saying that the ProSystem fx Suite is compatible with the 32 bit and 64 bit versions of Windows 7 (the links will also show other CCH products compatible with Windows 7). I haven't had a chance to test this out myself with the released/retail version but I'll get back to you soon.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Issue: Verifying workpapers are reviewed in a timely manner
Issue: The AICPA's QC Section 10 paragraph 60 states:
Discussion: Since the workpapers and their sign offs are in an electronic environment, just about anything can be logged given the right programming on CCH's side. First, one must decide what electronic evidence would provide assurance of a timely review. Does timely review mean a short time beteen the preparer's sign off and the start of the reviewer's work? Or does it mean the time between the preparer's sign off and the reviewer's sign off? The second example is functionally all we can hope for since Engagement doesn't track the start and finish of any employee's work and CCH programed Engagement to retain the sign offs indefinitely which means the data we need is there (the end of the preparer's work and the reviewer's work).
Resolution: Well, there isn't a resolution for now. While the data exists, a method to extract the data does not. I spoke with CCH Support today asking about a method to pull all the sign offs for all the workpapers. The reply was that the sign off summary report and sign off summary view are the closest thing currently available. The only problem with those options is that neither shows the preparer's sign offs which severly limits the evidence one could use to affirm compliance with the the timely basis requirement in QC Section 10 leaving firms to devise another way outside of Engagement to provide evidence.
Update (11/11/2009): I've got mud on my face. I was so tuned in on finding the sign off data in the binder view that I missed the Workpaper Sign Off History Report that is accessible in the File Room view. Just select the binder you want and select Tools Reports Workpaper Sign Off History Report. The report is exported to Excel and shows the workpaper name, who signed off, the role of the person signing off (preparer, reviewer, 2nd reviewer), and the date of the sign off. This report provides all the raw data necessary to start an evaluation.
However, the raw data is not enough. Professional judgment should come into play when determining if a workpaper file was reviewed in a timely manner. One engagement cannot be evaluated in isolation. It should be evaluated in the context of the firm's situation including staffing, problems in other engagements the team may be working on, etc. So, the moral of the story is that a firm should determine what its best practice is as far as "reviewed in a timely manner" is concerned and then stick to it. The Workpaper Sign Off History Report can play a part of a firm's defined evaluation process but should not be the sole part in the solution.
Review responsibility policies and procedures should be determined on the basis that qualified engagement team members, which may include the engagement partner, review work performed by other team members on a timely basis.How does a firm using Engagement verify compliance with the "timely basis" requirement?
Discussion: Since the workpapers and their sign offs are in an electronic environment, just about anything can be logged given the right programming on CCH's side. First, one must decide what electronic evidence would provide assurance of a timely review. Does timely review mean a short time beteen the preparer's sign off and the start of the reviewer's work? Or does it mean the time between the preparer's sign off and the reviewer's sign off? The second example is functionally all we can hope for since Engagement doesn't track the start and finish of any employee's work and CCH programed Engagement to retain the sign offs indefinitely which means the data we need is there (the end of the preparer's work and the reviewer's work).
Resolution: Well, there isn't a resolution for now. While the data exists, a method to extract the data does not. I spoke with CCH Support today asking about a method to pull all the sign offs for all the workpapers. The reply was that the sign off summary report and sign off summary view are the closest thing currently available. The only problem with those options is that neither shows the preparer's sign offs which severly limits the evidence one could use to affirm compliance with the the timely basis requirement in QC Section 10 leaving firms to devise another way outside of Engagement to provide evidence.
Update (11/11/2009): I've got mud on my face. I was so tuned in on finding the sign off data in the binder view that I missed the Workpaper Sign Off History Report that is accessible in the File Room view. Just select the binder you want and select Tools Reports Workpaper Sign Off History Report. The report is exported to Excel and shows the workpaper name, who signed off, the role of the person signing off (preparer, reviewer, 2nd reviewer), and the date of the sign off. This report provides all the raw data necessary to start an evaluation.
However, the raw data is not enough. Professional judgment should come into play when determining if a workpaper file was reviewed in a timely manner. One engagement cannot be evaluated in isolation. It should be evaluated in the context of the firm's situation including staffing, problems in other engagements the team may be working on, etc. So, the moral of the story is that a firm should determine what its best practice is as far as "reviewed in a timely manner" is concerned and then stick to it. The Workpaper Sign Off History Report can play a part of a firm's defined evaluation process but should not be the sole part in the solution.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
How To: Reduce Binder File Size
There are multiple reasons to manage binder sizes such as, but not limited to, binder transfer rates between the server and workstations (local and remotely connected from the field), network load, and storage space. The two most common contributors to the growth of binders is 1) the types of files stored in binders and 2) the number of files stored in binders. Documentation requirements may prevent users from addressing #2 but #1 should be a concern of all users, Engagement administrators, and system administrators.
By "type" of files I'm referring to the file type and the charactaristics of those files. For example, a PDF generated by convertion from a Word file may not take much space but, in contrast, a full-color scanned PDF may consume large amouts of disk space. This plays a larger part of binder size when the Perm File is large or is housed within the workpaper binder (i.e. Perm File and workpapers are in one binder; the firm I work for chose this setup).
Getting the file size data isn't as easy as one would like. CCH created the ReportBuilder application which basically performs queries on the Engagement database. It has several standard queries that return a lot of useful information. However, none of the queries returns binder size. As far as I can tell, the binder size is not stored in the Engagement database because its solely the size of a directory on the server or workstation. This is the problem: How can I run a query from ReportBuilder to get a list of the binders on the server(s) and match it to the directory size? The solution I use is somewhat manual.
Due to the nature of our clients and the firm's choice to combine the Perm File and workpapers in one binder, I've set the target max binder size at 100 mb. Some binders are above that and other are below. One of our biggest audits tops 1 gb, mostly because of the size of the Perm File.
Armed with the list of binder sizes and the target max size, I filter out the binders that have been finalized (I don't want to mess around with documenation past the regulatory deadline for assembly). I'll then identify a few candidates for reduction and view the directory details on a workstation (because the server has everything zipped up in .szp files). Most of the time it ends up that the PDF files are way to big for the number of pages within the document so I have to resave/compress the file to reduce the file to a better size.
If anyone else has suggestions, please feel free to share by leaving a comment. I think we'd all love to hear others experiences and solutions.
By "type" of files I'm referring to the file type and the charactaristics of those files. For example, a PDF generated by convertion from a Word file may not take much space but, in contrast, a full-color scanned PDF may consume large amouts of disk space. This plays a larger part of binder size when the Perm File is large or is housed within the workpaper binder (i.e. Perm File and workpapers are in one binder; the firm I work for chose this setup).
Getting the file size data isn't as easy as one would like. CCH created the ReportBuilder application which basically performs queries on the Engagement database. It has several standard queries that return a lot of useful information. However, none of the queries returns binder size. As far as I can tell, the binder size is not stored in the Engagement database because its solely the size of a directory on the server or workstation. This is the problem: How can I run a query from ReportBuilder to get a list of the binders on the server(s) and match it to the directory size? The solution I use is somewhat manual.
Due to the nature of our clients and the firm's choice to combine the Perm File and workpapers in one binder, I've set the target max binder size at 100 mb. Some binders are above that and other are below. One of our biggest audits tops 1 gb, mostly because of the size of the Perm File.
Armed with the list of binder sizes and the target max size, I filter out the binders that have been finalized (I don't want to mess around with documenation past the regulatory deadline for assembly). I'll then identify a few candidates for reduction and view the directory details on a workstation (because the server has everything zipped up in .szp files). Most of the time it ends up that the PDF files are way to big for the number of pages within the document so I have to resave/compress the file to reduce the file to a better size.
If anyone else has suggestions, please feel free to share by leaving a comment. I think we'd all love to hear others experiences and solutions.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
NEWS: Windows 7 Compatibility
The other day I drug out the install media for previous versions of Engagement and looked up when Engagement was compatible with Vista (June 2007). That was about 5 months behind the world-wide release of Vista (January 30, 2007). If Windows 7 compatibility is anything like it was for Vista, we can expect CCH to unveil a version of Engagement no earlier than the end of March 2010 (approximately 5 months from the Oct 22, 2009 release date of Windows 7).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)