Katetutor

You should already have the first four milestones to this paper. Please I need now to :

  

Submit your case study analysis. It should be a complete, polished artifact containing all of the main elements of the final product. It should reflect the incorporation of feedback gained throughout the course. – Please Label to Match Grading Rubrics) criterion (e.g. First Year of SOX Compliance: Success).  I want to see the EXACT titles from the grading rubric for each response and only those.  Please follow this exactly we need to get an A on this paper in order to pass.

ACC 67

5

Final Project Guidelines and Rubric

Overview
The final project for this course is the creation of a case study analysis. You will use the article The SOX Compliance Journey at Trinity Industries as a resource for
this project.

Companies today must ensure that operational processes are performing efficiently and effectively in compliance with current regulations. Accountants must
adhere to domestic standards set by organizations—such as the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and the Financial Accounting and Standards
Board—as well as global standards, such as the International Financial Reporting Standards, requiring appropriate implementation and assessment of internal
controls. Whether developing appropriate processes internally or preparing substantive testing, external auditors must be able to quickly and completely assess
the financial processes, determine weaknesses, and provide recommendations for improvement.

The ability to transcribe formalized or narrative processes into functional workflows allows an auditor to identify potential gaps in accounting systems. These
gaps can result in material audit findings necessitating changes in the company’s control structure.

However, it is not only the process and flow of transactions that requires scrutiny. Companies evolve into sophisticated, computerized systems that require an in-
depth understanding of administrative rights, electronic process flows, and end user reporting.

In this case study, you will apply all of these skills in developing recommendations for Trinity Industries. Though the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX)
promulgated many internal control structure changes, the company is unsure as to whether they are applying too few or too many internal controls. Unnecessary
controls place added burden on staff and cost the company thousands of dollars in monitoring and maintenance.

Your role will be to provide an overview of the company and its market industry. From this you will formulate your processes into a comprehensive flowchart that
will be used to identify gaps in processes and other threats to potential audit weaknesses.

The project is divided into four milestones, which will be submitted at various points throughout the course to scaffold learning and ensure quality final
submissions. These milestones will be submitted in Modules Two, Four, Six, and Seven. The final product will be submitted in Module Nine.

In this assignment, you will demonstrate your mastery of the following course outcomes:

 Transcribe formalized or verbal financial processes into both narrative and process flowcharts for identifying gaps resulting in potential material
weaknesses

 Summarize advantages and disadvantages of various accounting electronic data processing systems with respect to a specific industry’s needs

http://ezproxy.snhu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/963675948?accountid=3783

 Perform substantive testing of accounting systems to ensure processes described by management are accurately reflected within system transactions

 Formulate recommendations for improvements to financial processes based on outcomes of testing

 Assess the effectiveness of companies’ internal control structures for producing accurate and reliable financial reports

 Interpret standards as outlined in ISACA and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board as they relate to compliance within specific industries

Prompt
Your role will be to provide an overview of the company and its market industry. From this, you will formulate your processes into a comprehensive flowchart
that will be used to identify gaps in processes and other threats to potential audit weaknesses.

By understanding the industry, you will gain valuable insight into the appropriate software systems that will provide industry-specific needs and financial
reporting by comparing and contrasting current electronic data processing (EDP) systems with those in the marketplace.

By performing substantive testing, you will audit the transaction flow and determine whether financial information is accurately reflected in the system
transactions. This will allow for an assessment and recommendation as to the effectiveness of the company’s internal control processes, including changes in
transaction processing if necessary.

Finally, through interpretation of current audit and internal control standards, you will determine whether Trinity is in compliance within the industry standards
and aligned functionally with both efficiency and effectiveness of controls.

Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed:

I. Overview
To adequately prepare for the following questions, you will need to prepare an overview/assessment of Trinity Industries, including background, key
market demographics, financial position, and governance policies. You are required to address the following seven subjects:

a) Overview of the organization
b) Size of the organization
c) Sector/industry (along with three other companies that would be comparable)
d) Structure/line of businesses
e) Organizational structure (organization chart)
f) Yearly performance in terms of revenue (as compared with the three other companies identified)
g) Management and culture (i.e., how long has key staff been employed, stability of the company over the history, growth in industry)

II. First Year of SOX Compliance
a) The vice president (VP) and chief audit executive described the company as a likely candidate for a material weakness in the first year of SOX

compliance. What were the elements critical to the company’s decisive success in its first year of compliance?
b) What internal controls are important for preparing accurate and reliable financial reports? Support your response using both examples provided

in the case study, as well as research into accounting standards (i.e., Public Company Accounting Oversight Board [PCAOB]).
c) Define, using support from accounting standards or other empirical evidence, what a material weakness is in terms of SOX compliance.
d) Assess, through reflection on the case study as well as the comparable industries identified in the overview, what material weaknesses are

specific to Trinity.
e) Articulate standards addressed in PCAOB regarding the concept of material weaknesses in development of internal control compliance. Ensure

that you demonstrate the requirements of SOX from inception in 2002.
f) Describe the factors that made Trinity successful by illustrating the flow processes of the organization both in a narrative and process flowchart.

III. Bottom-Up Approach

a) What were the strengths and weaknesses of Trinity’s practice-based bottom-up approach? How effective was it?
b) What would you recommend it should have done differently in Year 1? Defend your response.
c) Compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of a bottom-up versus a top-down risk approach to compliance.
d) Which approach is more appropriate in completing a compliance project successfully for Trinity’s first year?
e) How does each approach affect a company’s internal control structure?
f) Identify the chief insights from the pilot project. How does the pilot project for the EDP system compare to SOX requirements?
g) Identify the testing processes Trinity performed and whether Trinity took the appropriate approach in designing their controls.
h) Based on the substantive tests, which testing process proved to be most useful in assessing Trinity’s accounting system?
i) Compose a short memorandum that communicates the results of the first year of testing along with recommendations as to what Trinity should

do differently in subsequent years.

IV. SOX-Related Expenses
a) Formulate recommendations for how Trinity could further reduce SOX-related expenses in 2008. Be sure to consider the barriers the company

may encounter with each of your recommendations.
b) What are the major sources of cost in Trinity’s compliance maintenance and testing?
c) Rank each of the major sources of cost in terms of value.
d) Compare the choice of Oracle as the selected software system against two other systems of comparable size and scope. Evaluate each software

system’s advantages and disadvantages.
e) If you determine that another software system would have been a better choice through your analysis, defend the decision. If Oracle is the

choice after analysis, defend that decision.

V. IFRS
a) What are the implications of a change in accounting standards? For example, what kinds of changes to data calculation and information reporting

are likely to occur with a transition to a new standard?
b) What changes will be required for Trinity to improve internal control compliance?
c) What standards will affect Trinity as a result of IFRS?
d) Discuss each infrastructure’s role is in supporting a compliance project like IFRS:

1. What constitutes Trinity’s governance infrastructure?
2. What constitutes Trinity’s IT infrastructure?
3. What constitutes Trinity’s process infrastructure?

Milestones

Milestone One: Company Overview Report (Section I)
In Module Two, you will submit an overview of Trinity Industries. Provide an overview of the company and its market industry. Include background, key market
demographics, financial position, and governance policies in your company overview. By understanding the industry, you will gain valuable insight into the
appropriate software systems that will provide industry-specific needs and financial reporting necessary. This milestone will be graded with the Milestone One
Rubric.

Milestone Two: First Year of SOX Compliance (Section II)
In Module Four, you will submit an analysis of Trinity Industries’ first year of SOX compliance. The VP and chief audit executive described the company as a likely
candidate for a material weakness in the first year of SOX compliance. What were the elements critical to the company’s decisive success in its first year of
compliance? Define a material weakness and explain the material weaknesses that are specific to Trinity. Describe the factors that made Trinity a success by
illustrating the flow processes of the organization both in a narrative and process flowchart. This flowchart will be used to identify gaps and other threats to
potential audit weaknesses. This milestone will be graded with the Milestone Two Rubric.

Milestone Three: Comparative Systems Report (Sections III and IV)
In Module Six, you will submit a draft of your comparative systems report. Compare and contrast current EDP systems used by Trinity Industries with those in the
marketplace. Using substantive testing, audit the transaction flow and determine whether financial information is accurately reflected in the system transactions.
This will allow for an assessment and recommendation as to the effectiveness of the company’s internal control processes, including changes in transaction
processing if necessary. Compose a short memorandum that communicates the results of the first year of testing along with recommendations as to what Trinity
should do differently in subsequent years, including recommendations for reducing SOX-related expenses. This milestone will be graded with the Milestone
Three Rubric.

Milestone Four: IFRS Report (Section V)
In Module Seven, you will submit a draft of your IFRS report. You will determine whether Trinity is in compliance within the industry standards and aligned
functionally with both efficiency and effectiveness of controls through the use of current audit and internal control standards. State all assumptions and
conclusions. This milestone will be graded with the Milestone Four Rubric.

Final Submission: Case Study Analysis
In Module Nine, you will submit your case study analysis. It should be a complete, polished artifact containing all of the main elements of the final product. It
should reflect the incorporation of feedback gained throughout the course. This submission will be graded using the Final Project Rubric.

Deliverables

Milestone Deliverable Module Due Grading

One Company Overview Report (Section I) Two Graded separately; Milestone One Rubric

Two First Year of SOX Compliance (Section II) Four Graded separately; Milestone Two Rubric

Three Comparative Systems Report (Sections III and
IV)

Six Graded separately; Milestone Three Rubric

Four IFRS Report (Section V) Seven Graded separately; Milestone Four Rubric

Final Submission: Case Study Analysis Nine Graded separately; Final Project Rubric

Final Project Rubric
Guidelines for Submission: Your case study analysis (including flowcharts and memo) should be 10–12 pages, double-spaced, with one-inch margins, 12-point
Times New Roman font, and APA format.

Critical Elements Exemplary Proficient Needs Improvement Not Evident Value

Overview

Meets “Proficient” criteria and
uses industry-specific language
to establish expertise
(100%)

Prepares a comprehensive
overview
(90%)

Prepares an overview but
overview is cursory or lacks
detail
(70%)

Does not prepare an overview
(0%)

5

First Year of SOX
Compliance: Success

Meets “Proficient” criteria and
determination is well-supported
with concrete examples
(100%)

Accurately determines
elements critical to the
company’s success in its first
year of compliance
(90%)

Determines elements critical to
the company’s success in its
first year of compliance but
determination contains
inaccuracies
(70%)

Does not determine elements
critical to the company’s
success in its first year of
compliance
(0%)

5

First Year of SOX
Compliance: Internal

Controls

Meets “Proficient” criteria and
uses industry-specific language
to establish expertise
(100%)

Discusses which internal
controls are important for
preparing financial reports and
supports response with
examples from the case study
and research into PCAOB
(90%)

Discusses which internal
controls are important for
preparing financial reports and
supports response with
examples from the case study
and research into PCAOB but
support is weak, illogical, or
does not use further research
(70%)

Does not discuss which internal
controls are important for
preparing financial reports
(0%)

5

First Year of SOX
Compliance: Material

Weakness

Meets “Proficient” criteria and
definition is exceptionally clear
and contextualized
(100%)

Defines what a material
weakness is in terms of SOX
compliance using support from
accounting standards or other
empirical evidence
(90%)

Defines what a material
weakness is in terms of SOX
compliance using support from
accounting standards or other
empirical evidence but support
is weak
(70%)

Does not define what a material
weakness is in terms of SOX
compliance using support
(0%)

3

First Year of SOX
Compliance: Specific

Meets “Proficient” criteria and
shows keen insight into the
types of material weaknesses
(100%)

Assesses which material
weaknesses are specific to the
company through a reflection
on the case study and
comparable industries
identified in the overview
(90%)

Assesses which material
weaknesses are specific to the
company through a reflection
on the case study and
comparable industries
identified in the overview but
assessment is cursory or
contains inaccuracies
(70%)

Does not assess which material
weaknesses are specific to the
company
(0%)

5

First Year of SOX
Compliance: PCAOB

Meets “Proficient” criteria and
shows keen insight into SOX
requirements
(100%)

Articulates standards addressed
in PCAOB regarding the concept
of material weaknesses in
development of internal control
compliance and ensures
demonstration of the
requirements of SOX from
inception in 2002
(90%)

Articulates standards addressed
in PCAOB regarding the concept
of material weaknesses in
development of internal control
compliance but does not ensure
demonstration of the
requirements of SOX from
inception in 2002
(70%)

Does not articulate standards
addressed in PCAOB regarding
the concept of material
weaknesses in development of
internal control compliance
(0%)

3

First Year of SOX
Compliance: Factors

Meets “Proficient” criteria and
both artifacts are exceptionally
clear and contextualized
(100%)

Describes the factors that made
Trinity successful by illustrating
the flow processes of the
organization both in a narrative
and process flowchart
(90%)

Describes the factors that made
Trinity successful by illustrating
the flow processes of the
organization both in a narrative
and process flowchart but one
or both lack detail or contain
inaccuracies
(70%)

Does not describe the factors
that made Trinity successful
(0%)

5

Bottom-Up Approach:
Strengths and
Weaknesses

Meets “Proficient” criteria and
determination is well-supported
with concrete examples
(100%)

Determines the strengths and
weaknesses of the bottom-up
approach and its effectiveness
(90%)

Determines the strengths and
weaknesses of the bottom-up
approach and its effectiveness
but determination is cursory or
contains inaccuracies
(70%)

Does not determine the
strengths and weaknesses of
the bottom-up approach
(0%)

5

Bottom-Up Approach:
Recommend

Meets “Proficient” criteria and
recommendation uses industry-
specific language to establish
expertise
(100%)

Formulates a recommendation
concerning what the company
should have done differently in
Year 1 and defends response
(90%)

Formulates a recommendation
concerning what the company
should have done differently in
Year 1 but does not defend
response or defense is weak or
illogical
(70%)

Does not formulate a
recommendation concerning
what the company should have
done differently in Year 1
(0%)

3

Bottom-Up Approach:
Top-Down

Meets “Proficient” criteria and
demonstrates a nuanced
understanding of the
differences between the two
approaches
(100%)

Compares and contrasts the
strengths and weaknesses of a
bottom-up versus a top-down
risk approach to compliance
(90%)

Compares and contrasts the
strengths and weaknesses of a
bottom-up versus a top-down
risk approach to compliance but
with gaps in accuracy or detail
(70%)

Does not compare and contrast
the strengths and weaknesses
of a bottom-up versus a top-
down risk approach to
compliance
(0%)

3

Bottom-Up Approach:
Compliance Project

Meets “Proficient” criteria and
determination is well-supported
with concrete examples
(100%)

Accurately determines which
approach is more appropriate in
completing a compliance
project successfully for Trinity’s
first year
(90%)

Determines which approach is
more appropriate in completing
a compliance project
successfully for Trinity’s first
year but is inaccurate in
determination
(70%)

Does not determine which
approach is more appropriate in
completing a compliance
project successfully for Trinity’s
first year
(0%)

3

Bottom-Up Approach:
Internal Control

Structure

Meets “Proficient” criteria and
demonstrates a nuanced
understanding of internal
control structures
(100%)

Accurately assesses how each
approach affects a company’s
internal control structure
(90%)

Assesses how each approach
affects a company’s internal
control structure but
assessment is cursory or
contains inaccuracies
(70%)

Does not assess how each
approach affects a company’s
internal control structure
(0%)

5

Bottom-Up Approach:
Chief Insights

Meets “Proficient” criteria and
demonstrates a nuanced
understanding of SOX
requirements
(100%)

Identifies the chief insights from
the EDP system’s pilot project
and how the project compares
to SOX requirements
(90%)

Identifies the chief insights from
the EDP system’s pilot project
but does not identify how the
project compares to SOX
requirements or identification is
incorrect
(70%)

Does not identify the chief
insights from the pilot project
(0%)

3

Bottom-Up Approach:
Testing Processes

Meets “Proficient” criteria and
supports claims with examples
(100%)

Identifies the testing processes
Trinity performed and whether
Trinity took the appropriate
approach in designing their
controls
(90%)

Identifies the testing processes
Trinity performed but does not
identify whether Trinity took
the appropriate approach in
designing their controls or
testing processes identified are
inaccurate
(70%)

Does not identify the testing
processes Trinity performed
(0%)

5

Bottom-Up Approach:
Most Useful

Meets “Proficient” criteria and
provides relevant examples
(100%)

Determines the most useful
testing process based on the
substantive tests
(90%)

Determines the most useful
testing process but does not
base determination on the
substantive tests
(70%)

Does not determine the most
useful testing process
(0%)

5

Bottom-Up Approach:
Results and

Recommendations

Meets “Proficient” criteria and
uses industry-specific language
to establish expertise
(100%)

Composes a memo that
communicates the results for
the first year and includes
recommendations
(90%)

Composes a memo that
communicates the results for
the first year and includes
recommendations but memo is
cursory or lacks detail
(70%)

Does not compose a memo
(0%)

3

SOX-Related
Expenses: Further

Reduce

Meets “Proficient” criteria and
shows keen insight into
potential barriers related to SOX
(100%)

Formulates recommendations
for how Trinity could further
reduce SOX-related expenses in
2008 and considers the barriers
they may encounter
(90%)

Formulates recommendations
for how Trinity could further
reduce SOX-related expenses in
2008 but does not consider the
barriers they may encounter or
recommendations are illogical
(70%)

Does not formulate
recommendations for how
Trinity could further reduce
SOX-related expenses in 2008
(0%)

3

SOX-Related
Expenses: Major
Sources of Cost

Determines the major sources
of cost in Trinity’s compliance
maintenance and testing
(100%)

Determines the major sources
of cost in Trinity’s compliance
maintenance and testing but
determination contains
inaccuracies
(70%)

Does not determine the major
sources of cost in Trinity’s
compliance maintenance and
testing
(0%)

5

SOX-Related
Expenses: Rank

Accurately ranks each of the
major sources of cost in terms
of value
(100%)

Ranks each of the major
sources of cost in terms of value
but contains inaccuracies
(70%)

Does not rank each of the major
sources of cost in terms of value
(0%)

3

SOX-Related
Expenses: Software

System

Meets “Proficient” criteria and
shows a nuanced understanding
of the various types of software
systems available
(100%)

Compares Oracle as the
selected software system
against two other systems by
evaluating each system’s
advantages and disadvantages
(90%)

Compares Oracle as the
selected software system
against two other systems by
evaluating each system’s
advantages and disadvantages
but evaluation is cursory or
contains inaccuracies
(70%)

Does not compare Oracle as the
selected software system
against two other systems
(0%)

3

SOX-Related
Expenses: Defense

Meets “Proficient” criteria and
provides relevant examples to
support decision
(100%)

Defends the decision of the
software choice based on the
analysis
(90%)

Defends the decision of the
software choice but does not
base defense on the analysis
(70%)

Does not defend the decision of
the software choice
(0%)

3

IFRS: Change

Meets “Proficient” criteria and
is well-supported with concrete
examples
(100%)

Discusses the implications of a
change in accounting standards
(90%)

Discusses the implications of a
change in accounting standards
but discussion is cursory or
contains inaccuracies
(70%)

Does not discuss the
implications of a change in
accounting standards
(0%)

3

IFRS: Improve

Meets “Proficient” criteria and
provides relevant examples to
support determination
(100%)

Determines changes required to
improve internal control
compliance
(90%)

Determines changes required to
improve internal control
compliance but determination
is cursory or contains
inaccuracies
(70%)

Does not determine changes
required to improve internal
control compliance
(0%)

3

IFRS: Standards

Meets “Proficient” criteria and
provides relevant examples to
support determination
(100%)

Determines which standards
will affect Trinity as a result of
IFRS
(90%)

Determines which standards
will affect Trinity as a result of
IFRS but determination is
cursory or contains inaccuracies
(70%)

Does not determine which
standards will affect Trinity as a
result of IFRS
(0%)

3

IFRS: Role

Meets “Proficient” criteria and
uses industry-specific language
to establish expertise
(100%)

Discusses the role of the three
groups in supporting a
compliance project like IFRS
(90%)

Discusses the role of the three
groups in supporting a
compliance project like IFRS but
discussion is cursory, contains
inaccuracies, or does not
discuss all three groups
(70%)

Does not discuss the role of the
three groups in supporting a
compliance project like IFRS
(0%)

3

Articulation of
Response

Submission is free of errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, and
organization and is presented in
a professional and easy-to-read
format
(100%)

Submission has no major errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
(90%)

Submission has major errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
that negatively impact
readability and articulation of
main ideas
(70%)

Submission has critical errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
that prevent understanding of
ideas
(0%)

5

Earned Total 100%