Even after adjusting the alert systems for any type of continuous auditing application, the
audit process still poses an information overload dilemma for the majority of companies. The
month-end and year-end closing processes of the accounting information systems to prepare the
financial statements for reporting typically involve several days of analysis, posting of adjusting
journal entries, and verifying the successful data transmission from legacy interfaces. The books
are not complete until this process occurs. False alerts and notifications to auditors would be
generated throughout the month on certain types of incomplete data raising misguided questions
and resulting in unproductive time spent investigating non-issues. To be efficient and manageable
, a continuous auditing system needs to allow the auditor to dynamically adjust metrics, turn
off the monitoring during periods where certain accounts may be in flux and the auditor is not
interested in the adjusting and correcting entries, or as certain accounts fluctuate based on the
normal business cycles of the client. For example, while current assets and liabilities will typically
be monitored on a continuous basis, noncurrent and long-term assets and liabilities may be monitored
in a much different way—including a shortened periodic snapshot versus true continuous
auditing. This would be particularly concerning to the external auditor using EAM because the
auditor would need to coordinate with client IT personnel to make any changes, whereas auditor
direct control over the MCL application allows quicker response time and requires less time from
the client an issue with any audit.