The usage of performance measurement systems by selected internal auditing departments in Windhoek, Namibia and Cape Town, South Africa

Performance evaluation of internal auditing departments is extremely important as organisations depend on the advice and assurance they obtain from these department. Therefore, this study seeks to determine the perceived most relevant and appropriate performance measurement system (PMS) used to evaluate the performance of internal auditing departments. The determination of such a PMS may lead to effective performance measurement, meeting and exceeding stakeholders’ expectations, and achieving strategic objectives. Questionnaires were distributed to organisations that hold an internal auditing department within the regions of Cape Town, South Africa and Windhoek, Namibia. The Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS) tool was used to analyse the data. The results obtained from the survey reveal that the most frequently used PMS to evaluate the performance of internal auditing departments is the Balanced Scorecard. The results also indicate that the Chief Audit Executive (CAE)/internal auditing managers are of the opinion that stakeholders expect the PMS of Internal Audit to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of their department. The CAE/internal auditing managers are also of the opinion that stakeholders expect the PMS to measure the competency of internal auditing departments and ensure that these departments adhere to the Code of Ethics, International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (ISPPIA), and apply the risk-based approach to their operations. The implications of this study contribute to identifying the PMS perceived to be the most relevant and appropriate to evaluate the performance of internal auditing departments. This study has affirmed that the Balanced Scorecard is perceived to be this PMS for effective and efficient performance evaluation of internal auditing departments. Despite the Balanced Scorecard being the effective and efficient PMS for internal auditing departments, it is not utilised properly to make provision for measures focusing on the assessment of risk management processes, internal audit control, and governance