One such factor is the timing of fieldwork. The scheduling of an audit can have a major impact on efficiency. If due care isn't given to this important task, productivity goes down the drain. So, avoid the following seven sins at all times.

#1 Starting Too Early
In general, fieldwork should not begin until the client is ready. This means two things. First, the books need to be closed (i.e., the client will not bring you more entries to post). Second, all client-prepared schedules should be ready. As commonsensical as this sounds, auditors begin fieldwork too early in many, many cases. The result? Jobs take longer than necessary as the audit team posts silly entries, struggles to keep busy, prepares its own analyses, etc.

There are reasons such as, "if we're not right there in the client's face, we'll never get the stuff we need," or "we can't meet our deadline if we start any later." In most cases, such excuses are, uh, lame.

Think about it. If the client won't get ready for the audit unless we are physically breathing down their necks, the engagement team is probably doing a poor job of managing the client. The client probably hasn't been given a reason to be ready. Are there any incentives or repercussions? If not, think of some.

We may also need to coax clients and place continual pressure on them. Most auditors prefer to avoid this task, but it's crucial. And it's not necessary to have the entire engagement team sitting in a conference room wasting time to achieve this goal. Telephones, fax machines, and periodic visits can work too.

The deadline excuse is equally lame. First, challenge the deadline. In some cases, there may be more flexibility than you think. A common example is "the bank needs the financials by the end of the month." Well, simply have the client call the bank and tell them that the financials will be delivered two weeks later. It's done all the time.

On a recent audit, the engagement team claimed the fieldwork needed to begin in early February to meet a March 31 deadline. Unfortunately, the books were never closed in early February, nor were the audit schedules prepared.

In a planning meeting, somebody asked a startling question, "Why don't you begin fieldwork one month later?" In a knee-jerk reaction, the audit manager immediately cried, "we'll never meet the deadline!" The first person responded calmly, "you're right, unless you begin to perform interim work." (See more on shifting testwork into interim periods under Sin #7).

Efficient auditors, try to avoid beginning fieldwork until the client is ready. Sit down with the accounting folks, and figure out the best time to start. Have them promise to be ready by an agreed-upon date. Make sure it's realistic. If they've made empty promises in the past, be skeptical and find a way to hold them accountable (e.g., insert language in the engagement letter). And do whatever is necessary to make sure they are progressing.

#2 Forgetting the Client's Schedule
Barrels of time can be wasted when auditors fail to consider the client's schedule. If the auditors are performing fieldwork while the controller is preparing a monthly reporting package for the board of directors, how much time will the client have to provide assistance?

If the auditors are performing fieldwork while the accounting department is working vigorously on billings, how much time will the client have to provide assistance?

If the auditors are performing fieldwork immediately after the client returns from vacation, how much time will the client have to provide assistance?

These scenarios arise when auditors seemingly fail to remember that the client has internal responsibilities. All of their normal duties continue during the audit. The world doesn't revolve around the auditors.

#3 Ignoring Space Requirements
Auditors may get stuck with lousy working conditions because the job is scheduled improperly. How efficient can one be when trying to prepare workpapers in the client's cafeteria? In a hallway? In a room with no telephone? Perhaps, the auditor could be given better workspace if the job was scheduled at a slightly different time.

While poor working conditions are common, don't forget situations when the client keeps making the auditors switch locations. Moving your belongings from office to office is not a value-added activity.

#4 Using Too Many Auditors
Auditors complain that some clients refuse to make enough time to answer questions or offer additional assistance. Whose fault is this? Perhaps Sin #2 was committed.

Or maybe too many auditors are scheduled in the field. With three auditors wanting information (often from the same individual), no wonder the client is struggling! As a general rule, smaller engagement teams will be more efficient than larger ones. First, this approach is easier on the client since it spreads out the workload. Second, it means that each staff person is able to perform a larger percentage of the audit. This of course means each auditor is better equipped to see "the big picture" and be more inclined to understand the client's business. The result? More efficient auditing and better business advisory capabilities.

#5 Using the "Herd" Approach
Many engagements are scheduled using the "herd" approach. This is when the entire audit team arrives together on the first day of fieldwork. The team is also scheduled at the same time throughout the engagement and will probably leave together, too.

Although this approach may be easier for the audit scheduler, it often leads to inefficiencies. Many times, there simply isn't enough work to do on the first day. You know the scenario. The most senior auditors meet with the client while the staffers struggle to find something to do. Perhaps foot the phone book?

Or how about the tail end of the job? In-charges often struggle to find work to keep the staffers busy.

Whatever the circumstances, the job was improperly scheduled. Professional standards don't require that the audit team arrive and depart like a herd of cows. It's quite acceptable to stagger the schedule so that persons arrive and depart based on the availability of work.

#6 Not Aligning With the Budget
Another problem is scheduling hours that differ from the budget. If not enough time is scheduled, the auditors will have to work overtime or perhaps be tempted to cut corners. Morale may suffer. However if too much time is scheduled, the hours are likely to expand and the budget will be blown. A good rule of thumb? Schedule a little bit of a cushion, but that should only be used if something doesn't go as planned. Hopefully, when the job is finished, the cushion time will be available to work on other clients.

#7 Avoiding Interim Work
On most audits, a tremendous amount of work can be conducted before year-end. But many auditors mistakenly believe that interim work adds hours to the audit. Therefore, they continue to kill themselves at busy times during the year. In reality, shifting work into interim periods can actually decrease total audit hours in some instances. In most cases, however large chunks of hours (e.g., 50 percent of the total hours) can be shifted without significantly adding hours to your budget.

Some of you may be saying, "it doesn't make sense to test controls at our clients." Our response? Who said anything about testing controls? Auditors who make this argument are showing their ignorance of professional standards.

Back to the point. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 45 makes it quite clear that you can perform interim work without relying on controls. It is amazing though, how most auditors in public accounting have no clue as to what SAS 45 is. Do you?

The key is to comply with SAS 45's requirements in an efficient manner. To do this, we generally suggest that you abide by SAS 56 and use analytical procedures to roll forward balances rather than relying on detailed testwork. Why? The latter is often ineffective and usually takes longer to perform.