Beyond Fault-Finding Using Verification as a Constructive Diagnostic Tool
Published on: Tue Sep 21 2021 by Ivar Strand
Beyond Fault-Finding: Using Verification as a Constructive Diagnostic Tool
In the international development sector, the role of the third-party monitor or auditor is often perceived through a narrow lens: that of a “fault-finder.” This perception can create a defensive and counter-productive dynamic, where implementing partners view oversight as a punitive exercise and monitors are focused solely on identifying compliance breaches.
This traditional model, while necessary for basic accountability, is limited in its utility. A more mature and effective approach is to reframe verification not as a search for individual faults, but as a constructive diagnostic process. The objective is not to assign blame for a mistake, but to identify the underlying systemic conditions that allow such mistakes to occur.
The Limitations of a Fault-Finding Mindset
A purely compliance-driven, fault-finding approach to monitoring yields limited long-term value.
- It encourages a defensive posture from implementing partners, which can lead to the concealment of information and a general resistance to the monitoring process.
- It tends to focus on the symptoms of a problem (e.g., a specific set of late payments) rather than the underlying disease (e.g., a structural bottleneck in the payment approval workflow).
- The resulting recommendations are often superficial, directing staff to “avoid the error in the future” without addressing the root cause that made the error likely in the first place.
This approach may enforce a minimum standard of compliance, but it rarely contributes to genuine, sustainable improvements in a program’s operational health.
Verification as a Diagnostic Discipline
At Abyrint, we approach our verification and monitoring engagements as a physician would a medical check-up. Our primary goal is to assess the overall health of a program’s interconnected financial, operational, and technological systems. In this model, a finding is not treated as a failure to be punished, but as a symptom that points to a deeper, systemic diagnosis.
This distinction is best illustrated with a common example.
- The Symptom: An initial data analysis reveals that a significant percentage of payments to local vendors are being made 30-60 days after the invoice date, violating the contractual requirement for payment within 30 days.
- The Fault-Finding Response: An auditor would typically list the specific late payments as a compliance breach and issue a recommendation that the finance department “ensure that all future payments are processed on time.” This identifies the “what” but ignores the “why.”
- The Diagnostic Response: Our analysis would seek the root cause. By analyzing the full dataset of time-stamped transactions, we can measure the duration of each stage of the procure-to-pay cycle. This analysis might reveal that while the finance team processes approved invoices within three days, the average time between an invoice being submitted to the system and it receiving the final required approval from program management is 45 days.
The diagnosis, therefore, is not a failure of the finance team. It is a systemic bottleneck in the approval workflow, likely caused by an inefficient process, unclear responsibilities, or technology that does not adequately support the approvers.
From Diagnosis to a Collaborative Learning Loop
Presenting a finding in this diagnostic format changes the nature of the conversation. A finding framed as “You failed to pay these invoices on time” invites a defensive response. A finding framed as “Our analysis of the data indicates that a structural bottleneck in the approval workflow is the primary cause of payment delays” invites a collaborative, problem-solving discussion.
This approach fosters a “learning loop.” The objective, data-driven insights from the monitoring process become a valuable tool for the implementing partner and the donor to use for adaptive management and continuous process improvement. The relationship ceases to be adversarial and becomes a partnership with the shared goal of improving overall program health.
The purpose of modern, technology-driven monitoring is not simply to find fault; it is to generate objective, evidence-based insights. By acting as a diagnostic partner, we move beyond the limited role of the traditional auditor to help our clients build the stronger, more resilient systems that are the true foundation of sustainable impact and lasting donor confidence.
