CHAPTER 8:

STAGES OF MANAGEMENT
CONSULTING ENGAGEMENT PART II
I. Negotiating the Engagement
II. Engagement Planning
III. Conducting a Consulting
Engagement
IV. Evaluating the
Engagement and Post-
Engagement Follow-Up
A. Problem identification and solution
B. Identification of suitable and accurate
sources of information
C. Data analysis and diagnosis
D. Solution Implementation
E. Preparation and presentation of the
report and recommended solution
F. Implementation
G. Follow up evaluation of the
implemented solution.
E. Preparation and Presentation of the Report and Recommended Solution
GUIDELINES:
1. Orally and with visual aids.
2. Clear, concise, and in a non technical
manner.
3. Do not overwhelm client with numerous
details.
E. Preparation and Presentation of the Report and Recommended Solution
4. Be ready to describe briefly the
significance of gathered fact.
5. Volunteer information concerning risk.
6. Written reports made throughout the
solution development phase.
F. Implementation
A CPA SHOULD NOT AND
CANNOT TAKE THE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR
MAKING MANAGEMENT
AND POLICY DECISIONS
IN ANY MAS
ENGAGEMENT.
F. Implementation
Should evaluate the clients capacity to develop and carry out
plans for the recommended program or system
May recommend that a client hire additional qualified personnel
to perform some of the many tasks required
The CPA
Development of a
work plan
Establishment of
controls over the
implementation
activities
Selection and
training of needed
personnel
Installation of needed
physical facilities
Development of
standard and
documentation
Testing of the
solution being
implemented
Follow-up and
evaluation of the
solution being
implemented
F. Implementation
G. Follow-Up Evaluation of the Implemented Solution
It involves:

1. Comparing the actual performance of the implemented system with
the expected performance.
2. Comparing the details of the implemented system with the
documented design.
3. Determining potential improvements to the new system.
4. Determining means of improving the systems development
methodology employed by the client firm.
G. Follow-Up Evaluation of the Implemented Solution
ECONOMIC REVIEW
OPERATIONAL
REVIEW
FUTURE
PERFORMANCE
REVIEW
Should involve the comparison of:
a. Actual benefits and cost of
the new system with
b. Expected benefits and costs
that were developed during
the system design phase.

Typical questions:

Were the development cost
estimates on target?
Did the expected benefits
materialize?
Were the operational costs in line
with estimates?
have significant variances
occurred?


Focuses on the actual use of the
implemented system by the inded
users.

Typical questions:

Does the system operate
successfully?
Has the system solved
organizational problems that ii is
intended to address?
Is the system being used or is it
being resisted?
Are the automated and manual
processes as efficient as intended?



Identifies potential improvements to
the implemented system and
estimates the effort required to
iomplement these improvements.
IV. EVALUATING THE ENGAGEMENT AND POST ENGAGEMENT
FOLLOW-UP
Benefits:

1. Direction for staff training program in the MAS division.
2. Basis for evaluating on-the-job performance of staff personnel.
3. Provides data for determining required resources for subsequent
similar engagements
4. Tangible evidence of quality consciousness consistent with the other
areas of a CPAs practice.
IV. EVALUATING THE ENGAGEMENT AND POST ENGAGEMENT
FOLLOW-UP
Proposal
Engagement Program
Work Program and
Schedule
Source Data and
Documentation
Reports
Results
1. Were specific problems with the client
encountered which might have arisen
if the problem area had been
adequately covered in the proposal
letter?
2. Did the proposal letter recognize all
requirements of firm policy in
establishing the engagement?
1. Did additions to or deletions from the planned
scope occur during the engagement? For what
reasons? Were these changes approved by
responsible client personnel?
2. Is there evidence that the skill level of personnel
utilized was not commensurate with the
requirements of the phase to which they were
assigned?
3. Were utilized techniques performed in accordance
with firm policy? What change in techniques
would you recommend for a similar engagement?
1. Did actual duration differ
significantly from plan? State your
opinions as to the reason/s for
deviation.
2. If dates of interim reports or
engagement completion were not
in accordance with prior client
agreement, state your reason.
1. Were recommendations to the client, oral or
written, support by adequate evidential matter
in the work papers?
2. Are there specific respects in which
organization or content of work papers are not
in accordance with minimum standards of the
firm? If so, describe.
3. Was it necessary to do additional work and/or
recontact client for additional information
before making a final report? Describe the
circumstances.
1. Were progress meetings held with, or
interim reports made with the client? If
not, state reason.
2. Did errors of fact occur in interim or
final reports?
3. Are there specific changes which you
would recommend in report content,
format or style to improve
effectiveness?
1. Were all recommendations accepted by
the client? If not, why?
2. What degree of satisfaction was
expressed by the client?
3. Describe any phase of circumstance in
which dissatisfaction was expressed (or
implied) by the client and the reason.
4. Were additional services, either
implemantation or a new survey
engagement, requested by the client?
IV. EVALUATING THE ENGAGEMENT AND POST ENGAGEMENT
FOLLOW-UP