One engagement
120 controlsThe scope of my second KPMG project, not the total across my clients.KPMG India · Internal audit
KPMG · Internal audit across industries
120 controls, eight sub-processes and nine key gaps on my second KPMG engagement, alongside client work across industries.
Result so far
Identified nine key gaps on an IFC engagement covering 120 controls across eight sub-processes. Received a KPMG Kudos award during my year with the firm.
My contribution
I took responsibility for the day-to-day work on site: learning eight sub-processes, coordinating with process owners, reviewing documents and testing controls across a 120-control engagement. I had support from two seniors, but had to work through much of the on-site execution myself.
01 / The problem
Where it started.
Fresh out of college, I joined KPMG’s internal audit team. My second project was an Internal Financial Controls audit for a manufacturer with annual revenue above ₹500 crore. There was no manager on site, and the two seniors supporting me were also working across other audits.
The decision
Understand each process well enough to question it, and bring written evidence into discussions with experienced process owners.
Learning the work while owning the day-to-day
Internal financial controls are the checks a company uses to keep its financial information reliable. This engagement covered 120 of them, spread across eight sub-processes. I needed to understand the workflows before I could assess the checks.
I worked through SOPs, notes and supporting records, then sat with process owners to understand how the work happened in practice. My seniors were available across several audits, so I had to prepare questions carefully and keep the engagement moving between those conversations.
The work identified nine key gaps, spanning system-based issues and practical improvements. Explaining those findings meant setting out the evidence clearly enough for an experienced process owner to assess it.
Different businesses, different audit work
Across the year, my work included large IT businesses, automotive and pump manufacturers, and medical warehouse settings. The tasks ranged from reviewing reports and conducting surprise compliance checks to examining food-catering operations and carrying out IFC audits.
Those settings required different questions. I could not assume that understanding one manufacturer’s process meant I understood the next client. I left KPMG on 20 June 2025 with more confidence in learning an unfamiliar business.
02 / The approach
How I worked through it.
- 01
Read SOPs, prior working papers and supporting documents to understand the eight sub-processes.
- 02
Walk through actual workflows with the people responsible for them.
- 03
Test controls, gather written evidence and investigate differences between the process and the records.
- 04
Discuss the gaps with process owners, ask for help when needed and document the findings.
03 / The evidence
What the work produced.
Process coverage
8 sub-processesWithin the same manufacturer’s IFC engagement.Findings
9 key gapsSystem-related and practical process gaps identified; implementation outcomes are not yet documented here.Recognition
KPMG KudosThe award I received. May 2025.120 controls, eight sub-processes and nine gaps all refer to one engagement. Findings are not presented as realised financial savings. The recognition shown is Kudos, the award actually received.
04 / Looking back
What I took away.
I was anxious at the beginning because the process owners knew their businesses far better than I did. Reading carefully, asking precise questions and keeping track of the evidence made those conversations easier. By the end of the year, I was much calmer in unfamiliar situations.
- Preparation helped me ask better questions even when I had little experience of the business.
- A finding needed enough evidence to survive a difficult conversation with the process owner.
What I would measure next
Follow agreed recommendations through to implementation and record what changed. Findings show what needs attention; closure and outcomes show whether the work led to a useful change.
Scope & confidentiality
Clients remain anonymous. The rounded manufacturer scale is included from my account. No raw working papers, system access details, client names or identifying findings are published.