Electronic Work Paper/Audit Engagement Software 1

TOPIC: Electronic Work Paper/Audit Engagement Software OFFICE: Auditor STATE: MN DATE: 11/18/10 QUESTION / ISSUE: The Minnesota State Auditor is requesting information from any states using electronic work papers and/or audit engagement software to manage its audits. If your state is using electronic work paper/audit engagement software, we would like to know: 1. The product name; vendor; customized or off the shelf package. 2. Your assessment of how well it works. 3. The type of audits (financial, performance, etc.) that is it used for. 4. Any limitations as to the number of electronic work papers per audit. 5. Your experience as to advantages and disadvantages of that product. 6. The technical requirements such as platform and network performance. We have reviewed the previous survey on electronic work papers from 2007 and a more generalized technology survey from 2009. However, considering how rapidly technology changes, we are interested in what audit shops are using today. State Colorado 1. Colorado Office of the State Auditor uses a solution called TeamMate. The vendor is CCH/ARC Logics. It is off the shelf software. We currently use version R8.2.2 2. The software for the Electronic Work Papers (EWP) works well. We have occasions where we have to restore individual work papers that have become corrupt, or projects that become corrupt. However, if back-ups are done on a regular basis, it usually does not result in much loss of work. On a scale of 1-10, with 10 being great and 1 terrible, we would score TeamMate as an 8 or 9. 3. We use this software for all of our audit work (financial, performance, IT, local government). We still have need for some paper files (on a limited basis) for our financial teams, when they are conducting single audit work. With that said, the great majority of work papers are now electronic. 4. We haven't encountered any limitations with the number of electronic work papers in a project. We have had audits with 600-1,000+ work papers in them. The key is typically the size of the work papers. Large scanned documents at high DPI settings will cause the project to slow down. This can be mitigated by reducing the DPI setting when scanning docs, only including relevant work papers in the project, and only including relevant pages within that document. 5. Advantages: Easy integration with MS Office products Word & Excel. Allows management to standardize audit processes such as administrative documents, survey tools, review processes, coaching notes, quality control, report referencing, etc. Allows for more timely and instantaneous feedback from audit managers to staff. Staff do not have to decipher hand written coaching notes. Allows users to quickly load audit steps from prior years. This is done via the TeamMate Library which stores templates and work programs. Disadvantages: Audit processes and work is now subject to quality of software. TeamMate Support is below average. Poor network infrastructure (poor cabling, routers/switches or a substandard VPN client) may lead to serious problems with audit projects. 6. It depends on which version you use. The newer versions (R9 and up) require a SQL or Oracle database. Organizations probably need to have at least Windows Server 2003. Depending on modules used, you may need a web Electronic Work Paper/Audit Engagement Software 1

State Delaware Georgia Illinois server as well. From a client side, users must have at least XP and Office 2003 on their machines. CCH has not yet certified TeamMate for Office 2010. For specific information, please contact CCH directly. 1. TeamMate; off the shelf, but has customized templates 2. It works well although we have problems sometimes with off-site locations and the file transfer speed. In this situation, the auditors will generally take a replication of the audit project while they are here in the office and then work from the replication while out of the office. We are in the process of converting the Electronic File System as part of an upgrade, which should improve performance for remote and offsite locations. 3. We use TeamMate for financial, performance, agreed upon procedures and special investigation audits. 4. No 5. No disadvantages to the product other than price. TeamMate is one of the more expensive products out there. Personally, I have no other experience using an EWP system for auditing other than TeamMate. Some of the auditors here have used other products and prefer TeamMate over the competition. As far as advantages goes, it is very easy to use and configure from an IT standpoint. New auditors are easily able to pick up and start working in TeamMate. Also, it can be easily customized to your organization. 1. Product name is CaseWare Working Papers and Connector. The vendor is CaseWare International and it is an off the shelf package. 2. From the technical side of how it works, we are able resolve issues either internally or using support from vendor. Most technical issues have been network sharing related and file lockups but all have been able to be resolved. 3. We are using for financial and performance audits. 4. Yes. History file size cannot exceed 2 gigs. The number of work papers that can be added is unlimited. However, the greater number of work papers you add then your performance will decrease. 5. Advantages are: everything is electronic, you can scan most any type of document, and audits can be locked down after completed. There is a trial balance module however we do not use this. The disadvantages are the folder structure view in CaseWare is not actually the directory structure. The larger the project gets the slower it gets. The checkin/checkout function is slow because it makes an entire copy of the project. 6. Windows XP and Windows 7 ready. Can use Office 2007 or Office 2010 32-bit only. For the network location the user must have network read and write access. We used AS2 prior to CaseWare. Our disk space requirements have increased. One reason is we are scanning everything and trying to go to paperless audit. 1. We use CCH CorpSystem Workpaper Manager version 5.7. This is an off the shelf package. 2. We have been very pleased with the product. We found it to be cost-effective, easy to implement, and easy to train and transition staff to its use. 3. We implemented the package on limited audits in May of 2009 and after a successful test implementation, we fully implemented the system for all financial, compliance, and IS staff audits in the 2010 audit cycle. 4. We have not identified any limitation on the number of work papers in the system. 5. A major advantage was the integration of Word, Excel, and PDF documents into the system. Since our staff were already trained in the use of these products, the transition to Workpaper Manager was enhanced. We have not identified any major disadvantages; overall we are pleased with the system. 6. Server stand alone server with Windows 2008 Standard w/sp2 operating system, with a Xenon 3GHz times 2 processor, 32Gb of memory, (4) 72Gb Electronic Work Paper/Audit Engagement Software 2

State Maryland Missouri hard drives w/redundancy. Standard/Minimum PC configuration Windows XP SP2, 1.7 GHz processor, 1Gb of memory, and a 40Gb hard drive. Below is a link to a demo: http://tax.cchgroup.com/flashdemos/corpengagement/main.htm 1. We utilize the CCH TeamMate electronic work paper program which was purchased from PriceWaterhouseCoopers (now marketed by the ARC Logics Group). The program is an off the shelf package; however, you have the ability to customize certain aspects the program (e.g., terminology, business rules under which the program operates) to suit your needs. 2. Overall, I believe most staff are pleased with the program and could not envision going back to the old way of doing things. However, we have encountered more "bugs" with the product than we initially anticipated. The vendor appears to attempt to resolve these issues in a timely manner but these bugs have cause some frustration among our users and some audit inefficiencies. The initial version we were using (R8.xx) got to the point where it was running smoothly (for us) with very few problems; however, we just upgraded to a new version of the program (R9.xx) to gain Windows 7 compatibility and we are again faced with a new series of problems which the vendor is now working on resolving (more frustrations for our users). 3. We utilize electronic work papers for all audits completed by our organization. The majority of our audit work relates to what would be classified as performance audits. 4. None that I am aware of. However, I believe there is a limit (very large) on the size of the project. 5. Advantages and disadvantages: The primary advantage for us has been the staff s complete access to the audit and related working papers at any time from any location [we store all of our audit projects in a central location accessible to the staff through the use of a Terminal Server set-up]. Sharing of information and best practices between audits. One of the drawbacks has been user acceptance. Newer staff seem to take to the product right away; however, some staff who have been around for a while are resistant to some of the new approaches and changes in the way things are done necessitated by the use of EWP. There is also additional time/resources required for staff training on the use of the program and for program set-up and maintenance. To some degree the cost of the additional time/resources can be offset by audit efficiencies gained from the EWP process. 6. Varies depending on the configuration you choose to use (centralized/global database or distributed individual databases) and the number of users you will have. For a desktop configuration any standard business class computer is sufficient for the product to run; however, most will find it desirable to have projects stored in a central location for which a Terminal Server type configuration is helpful. A centralized/global database configuration requires the use of either MS SQL or Oracle and a related network setup. Depending on your network setup and how you configure TeamMate its use may degrade your network s performance (to some degree). In reply to your inquiry, we use the Microsoft Office suite (instead of off-the-shelf software packages) for audit scheduling or management and preparation of electronic working papers. The same software packages (Word, Excel, and Access) are used for both financial and performance audits and other functions. For example, a status report, done in Access and updated weekly, is used to track staff assignments and each audit's progress through the field work and reporting stages. Electronic Work Paper/Audit Engagement Software 3

State New York North Dakota Ohio Oregon Since our current procedures are working well, we have no plans to switch to offthe-shelf software for audit engagement management or electronic working paper preparation. Attached is an overview document put together to assist other state agencies in evaluating TeamMate. It should address all of the questions you have. If you have specific questions about TeamMate, you may contact me, as I am the lead TeamMate Champion for the Division of State Government Accountability. Jennifer Paperman, New York State Office of the State Comptroller, Division of State Government Accountability, 518-474-3271, jpaperman@osc.state.ny.us 1. TeamMate 2. No response. 3. Financial and performance. 4. We believe it is unlimited per audit. It appears that any individual folder can only have 78 files attached (Excel, Word ), given our set up, this has not been a problem for us, and we have some large audits in progress (statewide single audit, state CAFR). 5. We started implementation of TeamMate in February. There have been some growing pains, but honestly it has gone better than one could reasonably expect. There are a few tricks to learn along the way, but the product works well for us. We put out a competitive bid, and we did not receive a bid that was competitive with TeamMate. If you pick TeamMate, I d be happy to discuss this in further detail. 1. TeamMate, CCH, off the shelf 2. Very user friendly, users picked up the functionality very quickly. However, we do have some issues with bugs and have had to establish work-arounds and spend time working with the vendor to correct software issues. 3. Financial, performance, and special audits including Single Audits. 4. No, however the larger the project the more time consuming sending and receiving data becomes. 5. Very easy to use; well organized; easily developed, customizable reports; locks down work papers when audits are complete; has reduced the amount of paper we use. We have had some issues with slowness on really large audits, and we have experienced some bugs in the software that have caused some loss of work (although this has been limited to a file or two, never an entire project or huge amounts of work). 6. The technical requirements will be driven by the solution selected. Our software runs on a Microsoft SQL server though they have an Oracle version. CCH recommends you run TeamMate on its own server. Connectivity to the central database is needed but most of our work occurs on replicas on our auditor s laptops. Your laptops will need a high speed connection to the database to replicate and synchronize your replicas. 1. We use CCH TeamMate Audit Management System, from ACR Logistics/ Wolters Kluwer which is an off the shelf package. We are currently in the process of upgrading from version 8.0.3 (very outdated) to the centralized model of version 9.1. The suite contains several modules, but we are only currently using TeamMate EWP (electric work papers), TeamStore, and TeamAdmin. We have plans to implement TeamCentral and conduct a pilot test of TeamSchedule. 2. Our office has used TeamMate for many years now, so it is fully ingrained in our audit process. We have integrated audit standards and our internal processes into standardized base templates for our audits. TeamMate seems to work well, but we haven't tried other software so I don't have a basis for comparison. 3. We use TeamMate EWP for all our audit engagements- financial, performance, IT, investigations. Electronic Work Paper/Audit Engagement Software 4

State Puerto Rico 4. I don't know of any limitations on the number of work papers. TeamMate EWP allows you to set a limit for the size of work papers if you want to reduce the project file sizes. 5. Advantages: we are able to develop a standardized base work plan to begin each audit. The suite of modules is integrated so it can be used for electronic work papers, scheduling, and tracking time, risks, and recommendations. There's a learning curve, but it's relatively easy to use. Disadvantages: There are some bugs and tricks to learn. Assistance from TeamMate's phone support staff hasn't been the greatest. Our upgrade process took a long time because we ended up upgrading multiple systems at once, but this may be uncharacteristic of other people's experience. 6. We elected to implement a centralized version of R9.1 which requires an Oracle database and a web server. All of the TeamMate projects and system information is stored in the Database. The web server is the interface between the user and the database for some of the suite modules. Specific technical requirements are available on the company's website. You can implement a decentralized version, but the company strongly recommends a centralized version, which they say 95% of their clients elect to use. Additionally, our office uses Citrix terminal servers to connect back to our system while we are in the field, so we've installed TeamMate on the servers. We also found that the new R9.1 version works better on our newer laptops with more processing capacity and RAM. 1. The Office of the Comptroller of Puerto Rico began using CCH TeamMate in 2003, (TeamMate was before a product of PriceWaterhouseCoopers). We are using the R.8 version. CCH released the new R.9 version in July 2009. Our office is looking forward to moving to the new version, possibly at the beginning of 2011. The actual product name is CCH-TeamMate (TeamMate). The Vendor is CCH Group, a Wolters Kluwer Company (CCH.com). CCH TeamMate is an off the shelf package. 2. In general TeamMate works very well. 3. We use CCH TeamMate to perform compliance audits. Generally, TeamMate is used within an internal audit department. We customized some of the program features to our needs, due to its flexibility. 4. The program has no limitations of electronic working papers per audit. Actually we are using the Microsoft Office 2010 Package. We also use the Electronic Working Paper (EWP) feature of TeamMate. All the working papers are electronic and the supporting documents are scanned. Both, the electronic working papers and the supporting documents are integrated into the audit package. TeamMate has encryption capabilities. Your audit projects are maintained in one place. Only the audit staff has authorization or access to the specific audits using restricted passwords. 5. Advantages: It has encryption capabilities. All your audit projects are maintained in one place. You can have your electronic working papers, supporting documents (like photos and any evidence) scanned into the project. It has audit report tools (EWP-360). Good inquiry response by the vendor. Compatible with MS Office package. We just learned that the new version R.9 has better features than previous ones. Some of the new features are: A more centralized approach. EWP projects stored in a central database Electronic Work Paper/Audit Engagement Software 5

State Utah Washington (SQL or Oracle). Explorer tabs pointed to central database. Explorer tabs filter to show assigned projects (via login information). Introduction of replication synchronization means that team members are better aware of work performed in the project by others and assignment policies in combination with field level conflict handling mean less file clean up. Automated tools allow for easy tracking of audit issues and the related responses. Able to compile and issue draft/final reports much sooner after finishing audit fieldwork. Colleagues working on the same assignment can review work papers from remote locations. Eliminates all hard copies of work papers, which saves office space and reduces waste. Disadvantages: Technology changes. License cost. 6. Our auditors in the field use TeamMate (remote version). For laptops the basic requirements are the following: - Memory 256mb-520 mb - Hard Disk 20+ GB - 800mz Microprocessor For TeamMate Central, you must have at least: - One Server with MS-Access (file server) - SQL or Oracle Server - IIS- for web page configuration 1. Creative Solutions Accounting (Engagement CS); Thompson Reuters/Tax & Accounting; off the shelf. 2. Works very well the majority of the time (we have used it for 3+ years). We have had a few issues with Windows 7. 3. All audits (financial, performance, other). 4. None noted. 5. Advantages integrates with PPC forms, uses Microsoft Office (disadvantage if not already using it). Disadvantages requires significant storage space, vendor technical support not always adequate, probably need some in-house technical support, learning curve may be moderately steep. 6. Windows, requires Microsoft Office, no significant impact on network performance for our office since each laptop has the software installed on it (we have no experience with their server product). 1. TeamMate EWP, Vendor is CCH, which is a subsidiary of Wolters Kluwer. It is an off the shelf package, but has been customized over time to better suit the needs of our office. 2. This product works extremely well as electronic documentation software. There are bugs and glitches that pop up every so often, but we generally find an easy fix or viable work around. 3. Financial, single, accountability, performance, special investigations, agreed upon procedures. 4. Not that we are aware of. The only consideration here is that the more work papers (attachments) that are included in the audit the larger the file size of the project file. This can be a factor if project files need to be transferred between computers or networks. For example, our email system only allows files less Electronic Work Paper/Audit Engagement Software 6

State than 10MB. Our office has around 1,000 audits each year and the vast majority fall under the 10MB limit. 5. The biggest advantage that this product has given us is the flexibility to use it for more than just an audit documentation tool. We use the TeamStore feature as a tool to quickly and effectively disseminate audit technique tools and templates. The TeamStore was paramount in our office addressing the financial statement risk assessment standards. We use project fields to force compliance with our own policies and audit standards. We have integrated this product into many other applications within our office to enhance data availability and integrity. The biggest disadvantage is that the product is continually getting updated by the developers, requiring a substantial amount of time and energy for us to modify our other applications and test before we can implement the new version to take advantage of enhancements. This is the nature of a proprietary software package, but is really our biggest issue right now. 6. This is different based on the version of the product. CCH TeamMate would be able to answer this question with much more detail. Electronic Work Paper/Audit Engagement Software 7

TeamMate: An Overview New York State Office of the State Comptroller Division of State Government Accountability Overview The New York State Office of the State Comptroller Division of State Government Accountability conducts financial, performance, contract and IT audits. We use TeamMate for all of our audits, and have been doing so since 2001. We did not have the resources to develop our own application in-house. So we evaluated the various off-the-shelf packages available at the time (early 2000). TeamMate offered the best combination of features and technical support from the vendor. Many of the other programs we evaluated are no longer available. We only use TeamMate Electronic Working Paper (EWP). We do not use any of the other modules in the TeamMate Suite nor do we have plans to do so. TeamMate EWP allows some customization. Among the things that can be customized are the labels on the various screens, the contents of certain drop-down menus and various technical settings. We formed a committee to review what could and could not be customized and to decide what settings to use. Planning Your Implementation As with anything else, planning is the key to success. Spend at least three to four months deciding how everything will be set up. Short changing the prep time will hurt you later. Once you roll out TeamMate, it is a lot harder to change the default settings, customized labels and drop-down menus. Paperless or Less Paper We acknowledge that there may still be some hard copy work papers by referring to our system as Less Paper. We do not expect that every audit will be done entirely in TeamMate. And we have guidance for our staff on what should and should not be in the audit project. If you are going to require all work papers be in TeamMate, you may want to invest in scanners for your staff. Depending on the amount of scanning they do, a portable scanner such as the Travel Pro may be sufficient or you may need scanners with document feeders. TeamMate Champions The vendor (CCH) recommends designating staff as in-house experts, referred to as TeamMate Champions. Depending on the size of your operation, you may want to have more than one TeamMate Champion. Identify these individuals up front so they can be involved in the planning process. Audit Templates and Team Stores Every audit project has to be created using an Audit Template. This provides the structure for the audit project. Each Audit Template has its own folders, audit steps and work papers. You can have different labels, drop-down menus and settings for each different Audit Template as well. TeamMate EWP also has something called a Team Store. This is used to flesh out an audit project by adding audit steps and work papers that are used often but not every time. Page 1 of 5 November 2010

TeamMate: An Overview New York State Office of the State Comptroller Division of State Government Accountability Basically, anything that needs to be done all the time goes in an Audit Template, anything that needs to be done most of the time goes in a Team Store and everything else is created from scratch when needed. Taking the time to develop your Audit Templates and Team Stores will make it easier for staff to start using TeamMate EWP immediately. We developed reference guides for the staff, describing the layout of the standard Audit Templates and what was supposed to be in each tab. Reference Materials There are a number of reference materials available from CCH. For the TeamMate Champions, there is a Champions Pack with detailed information about how to use TeamMate, the User Community website with information from CCH and postings by other users, and a Support Guide with information about the various TeamMate components, including a diagnostic guide that explains the error messages. CCH also has reference materials such as manuals, cards showing the various screens and a legend of the various icons. You should review these and determine whether you can use them as is or if you will need to develop your own. At the very least, you need to have two documents ready before you roll out TeamMate to your staff. The first is a TeamMate Protocol. This document defines how TeamMate will be used, addressing policies such as storing audit projects, backing up audit projects, sharing project files, updating standard programs and templates and getting support. This is something that you need to write, though the TeamMate Champions Pack has a template you can use. The second is a user s manual. This document explains how the various features of TeamMate work. You can use the manual as provided by the vendor or edit it to reflect your processes. After you have rolled out TeamMate, you will want to issue policy directives. These will provide additional guidance on how to use TeamMate, addressing specific issues your staff are having (or causing). You may also want to share best practices. As part of planning, decide on a mechanism for issuing these, including who will be responsible for developing them, reviewing them and issuing them. Rollout Consider having one or more pilot groups test the software before rolling it out to everyone. You can then modify the Audit Templates and Team Stores based on their input. You will need to provide training to your staff. Whether you have a single session or multiple sessions, be sure to have a make-up session for those employees who were on vacation or otherwise not able to attend. Provide the training before they start using the software, but not so far in advance they forget everything. Do not convert existing audits to TeamMate. Instead, require staff to use TeamMate for all audits started after a particular date. Page 2 of 5 November 2010

TeamMate: An Overview New York State Office of the State Comptroller Division of State Government Accountability Advantages of TeamMate EWP The main advantage of TeamMate EWP is file management. TeamMate EWP stores work papers in folders, similar to Windows Explorer. SGA, for example, has a separate folder for planning documents, administrative work, survey work, and field work. (These last two may actually be several folders, depending on the work being done.) Within these folders, there may be subfolders. Each folder or subfolder has the work papers related to that section of the audit. Work papers can be created within TeamMate EWP or can be created using another application (MS Word, Excel) and then imported into TeamMate EWP. Work can also be documented directly within TeamMate EWP. Scanned documents (TIFs) and PDFs can also be added to TeamMate and annotated. Only one person can open a document at a time, reducing the likelihood that one person will unwittingly overwrite another person s work. Another advantage of TeamMate EWP is that evidence of supervision can be documented within the work papers. TeamMate EWP tracks information about each work paper, such as its current status (in progress, completed, reviewed), who did the work and who reviewed and approved the work. It also has a feature called Coaching Notes, in which team members can send comments to each other about a work paper. A Coaching Note consists of the original comment, the response to the comment, and a link to the work paper(s) about which the comment was made. A third advantage of TeamMate EWP is that access to an audit project and its work papers is limited to just those team members assigned to that audit. A user ID and password are needed to access to the files (which are encrypted and so cannot be opened outside of TeamMate). Each team member can be granted different levels of access, from read-only (used for QA reviewers and peer reviewers) to preparing work papers to reviewing work papers. TeamMate EWP maintains a log showing the number of times each user has accessed the audit project, as well as the last date and time of both login and logout. An access history log is also maintained for each working paper, showing who last accessed it and what was done. You can set TeamMate to retain the entire history or just the most recent signoffs. Disadvantages of TeamMate EWP The main disadvantage is that the software is not intuitive to use. At the time of implementation, staff will have to be trained. Any new staff will also have to be trained. In addition, you will need some staff (exact number depends on the size of your office and the number of TeamMate users you have) to become experts in the software (referred to as TeamMate Champions), so they can provide support when problems arise. Based on our experience, take the time to review the software and decide not only the technical side (label names, standard layout of an audit project, default work papers) but also how it should be used. Our TeamMate Champions developed some reference materials that explain what the standard layout for our audits is and what type of information should go where, as well as which tabs/fields to ignore. Page 3 of 5 November 2010

TeamMate: An Overview New York State Office of the State Comptroller Division of State Government Accountability Our staff are usually in the field, without access to the network. Instead, they create a replica of the audit project. This is stored on one laptop, and the other team members map to that laptop. Be sure that all laptops are set up to correctly map, whether by the IT unit or through clear instructions for staff. Incorrect mapping will cause problems ranging from not being able to get into the audit project in the first place to losing data. We have also had problems with a loss of mapping leading to a loss of work, especially when people are mapped using wireless networks rather than cables and hubs. While it is frustrating to the person who loses the data, it is not common or widespread. And staff who regularly back-up the replica and merge the replica back into the master are less likely to have problems. We have also had some problems with how TeamMate EWP interacts with Windows. For example, sometimes Windows marks a folder as read-only, but allows users to save files in that folder. However, TeamMate EWP sees the folder as read-only and will not allow work to be saved. As another example, MS Word and Excel need to be registered with TeamMate EWP for work papers created in these programs to work right. Sometimes, TeamMate EWP loses the registration for these programs. These problems can be usually be solved by someone with administrative access, but only select staff have such access. While there are no limitations on the number of electronic work papers each audit project can have, we have had problems when the size of an audit project gets too big. This is particularly a problem for remote users who do not have direct access to the server on which the audit projects reside. However, the size of an audit project is more related to the size of the electronic work papers than the number. Thus, a 60-page scanned document is more likely to cause problems (or even become corrupted and unusable) than 60 one-page MS Word documents. Technical Support Staff can access both the TeamMate EWP manual and a troubleshooting guide from within TeamMate. There is also a link to our intranet site, which has various reference materials and policy guidance. Beyond this, we use a three-tiered approach to providing technical support to our users. The first tier is our TeamMate Champions. These are mostly field auditors plus some office-based staff that can handle most problems. The TeamMate Champions are also responsible for developing training materials and issuing guidance on using TeamMate EWP. They also provide information about best practices, to ensure staff get the most out of the software. The TeamMate Champions have also developed a troubleshooting guide for staff, which contains the more common problems and their solutions. The second tier is our IT unit. They handle the initial installation as well as any upgrades. In addition, certain problems do require administrative access to resolve. We did not want to give our TeamMate Champions administrative rights. Therefore, some problems do have to be referred to the IT unit. Staff are directed, though, to contact the TeamMate Champions first. Page 4 of 5 November 2010

TeamMate: An Overview New York State Office of the State Comptroller Division of State Government Accountability The third tier is the vendor. When we first implemented TeamMate EWP, we were contacting TeamMate s technical support regularly. Now, we only have to contact them occasionally. They have both an 800-number and an email, and generally respond to emails the same business day. Our IT unit handles all contact with TeamMate s technical support. Training When we first purchased TeamMate EWP in 2001, we had the vendor provide training to all our staff and additional training to those staff designated as TeamMate Champions. Since then, we have handled all training in-house, as follows: New Hires: In their first week, each new hire attends a 2- to 3-hour training session on work paper preparation and using TeamMate EWP. This session covers the basic features of TeamMate EWP, from opening the audit project to creating work papers to signing off on work. Self-Study Guide: The TeamMate Champions have developed a self-study guide that consists of a workbook and a sample audit project. It is made up of modules that cover both basic features and more advanced ones. All new hires are required to complete the guide in their first year, though they are not given it until they have completed at least one month. Experienced staff may use the self-study guide as a refresher. Because it is designed in modules, they can select a specific module rather than working on the entire thing. On-the-Job Training: Our auditors in charge are expected to assist their staff in learning to use TeamMate EWP. Best Practices: Our TeamMate Champions regular provide tips and suggestions on how to use TeamMate EWP more effectively. This was originally sent out to staff as a PDF. Now the information is maintained on our intranet, including some done as short videos. As updates are made, staff are notified via email. When we have a major upgrade in software (such as when we went from Version 8 to Version 9 in October 2010), we provided a half-day of training to all staff. Because they were already familiar with TeamMate EWP, this was not a hands-on training. Instead, it was a demonstration of the changes and new features. While staff were at the training, IT was upgrading their laptops. We have also held a couple of round-table discussions. Again, this was not hands-on training. Instead, staff asked questions while the TeamMate Champions demonstrated what to do. Additional Information CCH, the current vendor, has information about TeamMate, including some demo videos of TeamMate EWP and the other modules, on its website: http://tax.cchgroup.com/teammate. You should also contact them for the technical specifications to understand what you will need to have to run the software. Page 5 of 5 November 2010