As assurance providers, we play a critical role in giving confidence to stakeholders regarding the reliability of financial statements, internal controls, or other forms of reporting. However, a significant challenge we face is the “expectation gap” — the difference between what assurance providers understand they are delivering and what the users of the assurance report believe they are receiving. This gap can lead to confusion, frustration, and, in some cases, a loss of trust in the assurance process.
Table of Contents
What Is the Expectation Gap?
The expectation gap refers to the misalignment between the expectations of the users of assurance services and the actual scope of those services as defined by the assurance providers. It often arises because users are not fully aware of the limitations and nature of the services being provided. For example, users may mistakenly believe that an assurance provider guarantees the accuracy or correctness of information, when in reality, the provider is only offering a reasonable level of assurance or expressing an opinion within certain limitations.
The expectation gap is particularly evident when users expect a higher level of assurance than what is actually being offered, or when they fail to understand the difference between reasonable assurance (which gives a high but not absolute level of confidence) and limited assurance (which offers a lower level of confidence).
The Root Causes of the Expectation Gap
Several factors contribute to the expectation gap in assurance services:
- Lack of Understanding of the Assurance Process: Many users of assurance services, such as investors, regulators, and management, may not fully understand the nature of the engagement or the limitations involved. For instance, users may expect an auditor to guarantee that there are no errors in the financial statements, while an auditor only provides reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free from material misstatements.
- Misinterpretation of the Scope of the Engagement: Users may misunderstand the extent to which an assurance provider will verify or test the information. They might assume that every single transaction has been checked when in fact, only selected samples or areas of higher risk are tested.
- Differences in Terminology: Terms like “audit,” “review,” and “assurance” are often used interchangeably, but they can have different meanings depending on the context and the level of assurance involved. The distinction between reasonable and limited assurance may not be clear to many users, leading to mismatched expectations.
- The Role of Assurance Providers: Users may mistakenly believe that assurance providers are offering guarantees or certifications of accuracy, when in reality, the assurance provided is often limited to expressing an opinion based on a set of procedures performed.
Closing the Expectation Gap
As assurance professionals, it is our responsibility to close the expectation gap as far as possible, ensuring that our services maintain their value for the users. Here are a few ways to address and bridge the gap:
1. Clear Communication Through Engagement Letters
The first step in managing expectations is clear communication at the outset of the engagement. An engagement letter should be issued, outlining the specific services to be performed, the limitations of those services, and the level of assurance being provided. This document should clearly define the scope of the work, the standards to be followed, and the nature of the final report. By addressing potential misunderstandings upfront, we can minimize the risk of unrealistic expectations from the client or other users of the report.
2. Tailoring Reports to User Needs
It is essential that we regularly review and refine the format and content of our reports. These documents must be tailored to the audience and designed in a way that clearly conveys the level of assurance being provided. Avoiding jargon and technical language can also help users understand the report better. A clear and concise explanation of the findings, along with a statement about the limitations of the assurance, can go a long way in setting realistic expectations.
3. Educating Stakeholders
Another crucial step in bridging the expectation gap is education. Assurance providers should take the time to educate users about the assurance process, the types of services available, and the limitations of those services. This can be achieved through formal training sessions, newsletters, or even one-on-one discussions. Regularly updating stakeholders on the scope and nature of the engagement can help them better appreciate the purpose and value of the assurance service.
4. Maintaining Transparency
Honesty and transparency are vital in maintaining trust in assurance services. Assurance providers must be open about the limitations of the engagement and communicate any factors that could affect the results. If certain areas were not covered during the engagement or if the level of assurance is limited, it is essential to highlight these points clearly in the report. Transparency fosters credibility and helps manage expectations more effectively.
The Role of the Assurance Provider in Managing Expectations
As professionals in assurance services, it is crucial to remember that our role is not to guarantee accuracy or certainty, but to provide a reasonable and reliable level of assurance based on the work performed. We must ensure that our clients and other users understand that the assurance process is not infallible and that the services provided are subject to the limitations inherent in the scope of the engagement.
Conclusion
The expectation gap in assurance services is an ongoing challenge, but it is one that can be managed with clear communication, education, and transparency. By setting realistic expectations at the outset, being transparent about the scope and limitations of the engagement, and ensuring that reports are clear and accessible, assurance providers can bridge the gap and maintain the value and credibility of their work. Closing the expectation gap not only protects the integrity of the assurance profession but also strengthens trust between assurance providers and their clients.