You can't monitor what you can't measure

Fraud examination thought leaders are working to innovate anti-fraud processes. Column editor Vincent M. Walden, CFE, CPA, in conjunction with other professionals, reports original concepts that help improve the effectiveness and efficiency of anti-fraud monitoring. EY Fraud Investigation & Dispute Services (FIDS) and Anheuser-Bush InBev contributed to this column.* — ed.

Fraud examiners and compliance professionals have used continuous monitoring with evidence-based, anti-fraud prevention and detection analytics programs for many years. Historically, the volumes of data generated by businesses have far outpaced the ability of risk-oriented business functions to manage that data, and the inherent risks evident within it, but this is changing. Digital transformation is impacting almost every aspect of today’s global organizations, including the risk management, compliance and legal functions. Organizations that have implemented continuous monitoring programs in the past are now looking to improve their data analytics programs more efficiently and effectively, and in objective and actionable ways.

However, challenges still exist. Continuous monitoring and forensic data analytics platforms can sometimes be plagued with burdensome data volumes, an inability to access or integrate disparate data sets, lack of technical or domain expertise and inadequate technologies to analyze data, among other issues.

Rapid digitalization and increasing regulatory complexities are creating new fraud compliance risks and other compliance issues. In response, agile organizations are using innovative analytical remedies to help counter those risks.