A body of work can take a long time to create, even when leveraging other resources and bodies of work. So how do you learn about the hot new topics today? The Audit Risk Early Access Program (AREAP) is the answer. In AREAP, you have access to a course section by section, while it's being written and maintain lifetime access to final course as soon as it's finished. If you pre-order the Assurance of Learning certificate or certification, you'll get them at a deep discount.

The AREAP advantage

AREAP offers several benefits over the traditional "wait to learn" model.

• Get started now. You can read (or listen) to early versions of each section before the course is finished.

• Regular updates. We'll let you know when updates are available, and you can get the new content from your cRisk Academy user account. As of now, AREAP courses are offered exclusively on cRiskAcademy.com.

• Get finished courses faster. AREAP customers are the first to get access to the final course content, including access to supplemental resources such as digital downloads and source code if applicable.

• Contribute to the process. As an AREAP customer, you’ll gain access to a private slack channel where you will have access to the author and other AREAP customers. Your feedback will make the creative process better.

The longer story

Why we created AREAP

A quality course takes a long time to publish. Before we started the Audit Risk Early Access Program, we found it frustrating that while we were working on later sections, the earlier ones sat in in “draft”, providing no use to anyone. Valuable content was locked up by the lengthy creation and and publishing process. So we are changing the process: we created AREAP.

What it is

In AREAP, you buy the course before it's finished and we commit to provide the value you should expect from all training providers. You’ll gain access to CPE credits and Assurance of Learning Certificates as they become finalized. You’ll also receive deep discounts on Professional Certification if applicable for the course. During the AREAP, we share drafts of the course sections at a time. If we are forced to abandon a course for any reason, we offer you an exchange or a refund.

Why it's better

While the author is writing new content you get access to those waiting chapters and can benefit from them much earlier. We often start a AREAP after three months of work on a course, so you can start gaining access nine months or more before publication. The content you get is not finished and will evolve, sometimes dramatically, before we feel is it final. You get the course drafts as they are released, which means you can apply the concepts on the job and on your projects sooner. You get a chance to let the author know what you think, which can help make a better course.

AREAP FAQs

Q: Where can I buy an AREAP course?

Audit Risk Media LLC publishess our AREAP exclusively on cRisk Academy. cRisk Academy started in 2017 with the goal of being the best place to find online training for internal auditors. We may offer our training on other platforms once a course is ready to publish, but early access to our training will be available on cRiskAcademy.com. Pricing will be automatically discounted for AREAP titles, but we will also provide “extras” to surprise and delight. You’ll have immediate access to the AREAP course after registration. You’ll receive a private message with an invitation to join the AREA community forum on Slack. You will then continue to receive updated versions of the course until the final course is published. You’ll retain lifetime access to the final course on cRisk Academy.

Q: Can I buy a AREAP anywhere else?

No. Currently, AREAP are available exclusively at criskacademy.com.

Q: What products do I get when I buy a AREAP?

With AREAP, you get early access to draft sections of the course. Our courses are truly multi-media. We create sections that contain full text transcripts, audio and video recordings. We also will maintain a source code repository for courses that contain either SQL or programming code. The AREAP courses are electronic (PDF, PPT, WORD, TXT, MP3, MP4, SQL, PY, etc). You will have access to the course content on the cRisk Academy platform.

Q: What happens if a AREAP course is cancelled before publication?

We do not anticipate canceling an AREAP course, but unfortunately not all courses make it to publication. In the event that we must cancel a AREAP course, we offer all customers an exchange or refund. Customers that select the exchange option will also get a bonus course.

Q: What if I'm not happy with the AREAP?

Because AREAPs are courses-in-progress, sometimes the drafts can be rough, or progress can be slow. We hope that you can remain patient while the course is shaped and polished, but if you are dissatisfied with a AREAP you have purchased, you may request a one-time exchange, or a refund, within 30 days of purchase.

Q: Are there mobile formats of AREAPs?

Yes. cRisk Academy leverages a modern learning management system (MLS) that is mobile friendly.

Q: Does an AREAP course cost more than a regular Audit Risk Media course?

No. When you sign up for our mailing list or follow us on social media, you get many opportunities for discounts and access to other resources. When you buy an AREAP, you are pre-ordering the finished course. The advantage with AREAP is that you get early access to the content in draft form, and receive the published course immediately when it's complete.

Q: When will I get each section?

As the author writes and revises sections, we release updated versions of the AREAP continuously. The number of new sections included in each version depends heavily on how quickly the author is working, and how much revision is needed on existing chapters. In general, we want to get new content into your hands as fast as possible. That means we try to update each AREAP regularly with whatever we have, even if the draft is rough. We send out an email every time there is a new version available, which you can access from your cRisk Academy account.

Q: How do I know when new sections are released?

Each time a new section is released all AREAP customers will receive an email communicating the update. We will also publish an announcement in the Audit Risk Media Slack community with a link to the release notes.

Q: Why are the final publication dates only estimates?

We will do our best to predict a publication date. Experience has taught us that publication estimates can be unreliable. They often slip for a variety of reasons outside of Audit Risk Media’s control, including changes in the authors' lives (professional or personal). We make every effort to keep new chapters flowing but we will appreciate your understanding when delays do occur. The closer a course gets to the end, the more accurate an estimated publication dates tend to become. We reserve the right to adjust the publication date as needed.

Q: Is there source code available during the AREAP?

If source code is applicable to an AREAP course, it will be posted in the course under "Resources". We encourage authors to make source code available during the AREAP, so that it supports the latest versions of the learning materials.

Q: Do AREAP courses have a forum?

Yes, you will be able to email the author from within the cRisk Academy platform, but we will have a Slack forum dedicated to each AREAP course. We encourage the Author(s) to monitor the forums for suggestions and errata from customers.

Q: How do I send feedback and errata for a AREAP title? Will it help?

We welcome you to post any comments to the course's Slack forum. Typos and other small mistakes will be fixed during copy editing. Authors and Editors check the forum for suggestions and use the feedback to improve the final draft. This is one of the great benefits of the AREAP program. All feedback is greatly appreciated!

Q: Which titles are currently available through AREAP?

We will maintain a complete catalog of AREAP courses, including new and updated releases.

Navigating the ever-changing landscape of internal auditing can often feel like engaging in a mixed martial arts (MMA) bout, where adaptability, anticipation, and strategic acumen dictate success. The philosophies of Bruce Lee, encapsulated in his Tao of Jeet Kune Do, provide a rich tapestry of parallels that resonate with the principles of internal auditing. Lee’s advocacy for fluidity, efficiency, simplicity, and continuous learning offers a unique lens through which we can refine and enhance audit practices.

Bruce Lee's Tao of Jeet Kune Do

Bruce Lee’s martial arts philosophy promotes adaptability, simplicity, and the elimination of the superfluous. His advice to "Adapt what is useful, reject what is useless, and add what is specifically your own" is particularly resonant for internal auditors who must sift through vast amounts of data to focus solely on what is relevant for their audit objectives. This principle of simplicity guides auditors to streamline processes and reduce complexities, which not only makes the audit more effective but also enhances clarity and focus.

Simplicity and Efficiency in Auditing

Central to Bruce Lee's approach was the principle of expressing the maximum amount of efficiency through the simplest of actions. This approach is vital in internal auditing, where the complexity of information can be overwhelming. Auditors can take a page from Lee's philosophies by focusing on the most straightforward and direct paths to achieve audit objectives. By reducing unnecessary procedures and focusing on key risk areas, auditors can improve their operational efficiency and effectiveness, ensuring that their efforts are concentrated where they can have the greatest impact.

The Role of Heuristics in Internal Auditing

Heuristics, or mental shortcuts, are essential for auditors to make efficient decisions in complex and time-sensitive situations. Similar to a fighter using instinct and experience to make swift decisions in the ring, an auditor uses heuristics to navigate the multifaceted audit landscape. However, just as a martial artist must avoid becoming predictable, auditors must also guard against biases inherent in heuristic methods, continually questioning their assumptions to maintain audit effectiveness. Heuristics are not to be avoided entirely as they are what make us unique humans.

Adapting and Evolving with the Environment

Just as Bruce Lee emphasized being like water—adaptable and ever-evolving—so too must auditors be flexible and responsive. The business environment is constantly in flux, requiring auditors to adapt their approaches to new regulations and emerging risks. This adaptability ensures that auditing practices remain both relevant and robust, capable of identifying and addressing new challenges as they arise.

Take Away

By drawing on Bruce Lee's philosophies, internal auditors can foster a culture of simplicity, efficiency, and continuous improvement, enhancing both their personal performance and the strategic value of their audits. Lee’s principles of adaptability, straightforwardness, and perpetual learning are not merely martial arts strategies but foundational elements that can elevate your practice in internal auditing and beyond. As auditors embody these traits, they can ensure that their practices are not only adaptable and efficient but also deeply aligned with the evolving needs of their organizations. In this way, they uphold the integrity and accountability essential to their profession. Even the most disciplined and experienced auditor has much to learn.

Disclaimer: This blog post was assisted by the AI language model ChatGPT in generating ideas and content.

Source: Pixelverse

In the ever-evolving realm of digital interaction, interfaces play a pivotal role in facilitating seamless communication between humans and machines alike. Much like how Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) serve as the backbone for data exchange between software systems, the emergence of generative AI signals a transformative shift in human-to-human communication. So that would look like this: human-to-ai-to-human communication.

The Interface Evolution

For decades, APIs have been the unsung heroes of software integration, enabling applications to interact, share data, and enhance functionality. Similarly, generative AI has emerged as a powerful tool, transcending traditional boundaries to become a bridge between human minds. Let’s compare and contrast.

Programming Language vs. Natural Language

Programming languages are referred to as languages because, like human languages, they serve as a means of communication. While human languages facilitate communication between people, programming languages are used to communicate instructions to computers. Both types of languages share similarities in their ability to convey information and make things happen. However, there are key differences between programming languages and spoken/written languages.

Similarities

• Communication: Both human and programming languages enable communication. Human languages convey wants, emotions, and ideas among people, while programming languages instruct computers on tasks like displaying text or running games.

• Development: Over time, both types of languages evolve and introduce new concepts. They can become obsolete if not used.

• Expression: Mastery of language allows for effective expression. Just as a well-spoken person can convey ideas clearly, well-written code is readable and understandable.

Differences

• Learning Curve: Learning a new programming language is typically quicker than learning a new human language due to the structured logic behind programming languages.

• Rules vs. Patterns: Human languages have rules that are often broken without hindering communication, while programming languages follow strict rules for syntax and structure.

• Nuances: Human languages have nuances and complexities that take time to master for effective communication, whereas programming languages focus on clear and structured instructions for computers.

In essence, while both programming and human languages share commonalities in their ability to communicate and make things happen, the primary distinction lies in their intended audience (computers vs. people) and the level of structure and clarity required in conveying information.

Interface Example

An interface is really an agreed upon standard and meaning. For example, here is the definition of the word serendipity per dictionary.com. More or less, we English speakers understand and agree to this definition.

Source: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/serendipity

Application Programming Interfaces have more structured rules. To understand how Application Programming Interfaces (API) work, we’ll reformat the Serendipity definition above as a JSON document. JSON documents are both computer and human readable, which is a huge innovation. In JSON, data is stored in key value pairs. The syntax highlights the pairs below. Even if you’re not a coder, it’s a nifty way to share structure, right? While JSON is relatively easy to write, there is some additional overhead to ensure the formatting is correct. Computers around the world understand JSON, but proper syntax is required. If you forget one comma (,) then the computer throws an error.

{
  "word": "serendipity",
  "pronunciation": "ser-uhn-dip-i-tee",
  "definitions": [
    {
      "part_of_speech": "noun",
      "plural_form": "serendipities",
      "meanings": [
        {
          "definition": "an aptitude for making desirable discoveries by accident."
        },
        {
          "definition": "accidental discovery, or an instance of this: Alton’s premiere novel was a serendipity that affected my thinking in the most positive way."
        },
        {
          "definition": "good fortune; luck: What serendipity—she got the first job she applied for!"
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}

Generative AI: A Universal Language

Generative AI represents a new frontier in communication, offering a universal language that transcends barriers of expertise and technical jargon. As more individuals become acquainted with generative AI's capabilities, it has the potential to transform into a shared interface for expressing ideas, thoughts, and queries with unparalleled ease. Moreover, generative AI understands natural language, and doesn’t have to worry about proper syntax. It understands the Dictionary.com definition of ‘Serendipity’ even if the there is a typo or if the word is not used exactly as the explicit definition.

Seamlessly Connecting Humans

While APIs facilitate machine-to-machine communication, generative AI facilitates human-to-human interaction by interpreting and generating natural language. As its influence grows, it fosters clearer, more effective communication in our interconnected world, blurring the lines between technical and non-technical conversations.

Unleashing Creativity and Collaboration

The adoption of generative AI as a communication interface has revolutionized content creation, collaboration, and problem-solving. Generative AI empowers users to unlock their creativity, overcome writer's block, and explore new perspectives by engaging in dynamic conversations. Much like APIs enable developers to communicate across platforms and programming languages, generative AI enables individuals to express themselves freely and collaborate in unprecedented ways.

The Future of Communication

As we navigate the evolving landscape of digital communication, the rise of generative AI signifies a new era where conversations transcend traditional boundaries. Whether it's brainstorming ideas, drafting content, or engaging in meaningful discussions, generative AI serves as a mediator, enhancing our ability to connect, collaborate, and innovate.

In conclusion, the analogy between APIs and generative AI highlights the adaptability of interfaces in shaping the way we communicate. From the technical intricacies of APIs to the user-friendly conversations facilitated by generative AI, the journey underscores the transformative potential of interfaces in bridging worlds and fostering meaningful connections. As generative AI continues to redefine the landscape of human communication, its impact on digital discourse is poised to shape the way we exchange ideas for years to come.

1. Data Analysis: Python is a powerful tool for data analysis, allowing auditors to sift through large data sets quickly and efficiently. Avoid row limits in Excel.

2. Automation: Python can automate many repetitive tasks, saving auditors valuable time.

3. Report Generation: Python can be used to generate detailed audit reports, making it easier to share findings. Visualization of KPIs and data is easy.

4. Error Reduction: Automated processes reduce the risk of human error, leading to more accurate audits.

5. Integration: Python can integrate with other tools and software commonly used in auditing.

6. Flexibility: Python is a versatile language that can be adapted to a wide range of auditing tasks. Planning, Fieldwork, Reporting, etc.

7. Community Support: Python has a large and active community, providing a wealth of resources and support for auditors learning to code. We can build an audit community of Python users! Join me.

8. Machine Learning: Python's machine learning libraries can be used to identify anomalies and patterns in audit data.

9. Cost-Effective: Python is free to use, making it a cost-effective choice for audit departments. Audit analytics platforms can be expensive!

10. Career Advancement: Learning Python can open up new career opportunities and make auditors more marketable. You may not be in audit forever. Python is transferable.

Contact us if you’re interested in learning Python…we create custom learning plans.

Preamble

Many of my extended family are teachers, principals, professors. While I pursued a business degree in college, I share their passion for education and life long learning. I suppose it’s why I’ve been fixated on Continuing Professional Education (CPE) ever since becoming an internal auditor in 2005.

This post isn’t meant to advocate for Assurance of Learning (AoL) for all CPE programs, although I believe that the AoL framework has a lot to offer. AoL provides evidence of learning. In this way, AoL addresses the skills development gap facing the internal audit profession. I’m hopeful this post can serve as a call to action to continuing education trainers in the audit and risk profession to update how our programs are administered. It will take time to align on the way forward. It’s not too early to elevate your training delivery while we wait for the discourse to begin. We’ve published our educational teaching principles as an example for others to leverage.

Introduction

The landscape in the audit profession is always changing. Internal auditors need to stay sharp on the professional requirements as well as develop soft and technical skills. Technical skills matter. One way to achieve professional competency and build skills is to be very selective about where you spend your training budget. It's important to think about the opportunity cost as well as the price of the training. Said another way, not all training is equal.

Assurance of learning (AoL) involves demonstrating, through assessment, that students achieve the learning expectations for their programs. AoL focuses on the quality of the curriculum and encompasses continuous evaluation before and after assessment. (Source)

In this post, we will attempt to convince you (the internal audit leader and practitioner), that your time and attention should be given to training providers who can ‘assure’ learning and skill development. This post will also serve as a public call to action for the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) to improve our continuing professional development framework. We should do more than benchmark our CPE policies to NASBA.

We believe it is essential for audit departments to prioritize assurance of learning to ensure their auditors are consistently competent, objective, and capable of providing value and useful insights to the organization. We explore the role of assurance of learning in internal auditors' skills development, focusing on its impact on knowledge retention, its role in identifying areas of improvement, and its influence on ongoing professional development.

PDCA

AoL is consistent with the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle. In the educational context, the "Plan" stage involves analyzing students' needs through data. The "Do" stage includes aligning program methods with standards and providing instruction based on individual student needs.

The "Check" stage entails continuous assessments to track progress and identify areas for improvement. Finally, the "Act" stage focuses on standardizing successful practices, working on the opportunities, and sharing best practices for ongoing improvement. This cyclic process of planning, implementing, evaluating, and acting based on results is crucial for driving continuous improvement in educational settings. Auditors who are already familiar with PDCA, should see the shared traits with AoL.

Customized Learning

Customized learning is an advantage that AoL brings to the learning process. Since AoL involves the assessment of the individual, learning outcomes can be tailored to the specific needs of each auditor. Customized learning addresses some of the biases (Experience, Linear Progression, Specialization) of the NASBA program levels that we discussed in part 2 of our series.

With an understanding of the individual(s), trainers can then be used to tailor learning programs to address their specific needs. This helps ensure that every auditor's learning path is as effective and efficient as possible. By matching the learning journey to the unique needs of every auditor, AoL ensures a more impactful learning experience. For internal auditors, assurance of learning can play a significant role in enhancing their skill development as outcomes are mutually agreed upon at the beginning.

Identifying Areas of Improvement

Internal Auditors are trained to identify areas of improvement within their organizations. Somehow, the same level of due diligence doesn’t always carry over to our continuous professional development. Our profession has become complacent, and possibly complicit, by knowingly accumulating CPE credits in order to maintain our certifications over skill development.

There are likely many reasons for this. Budget comes to mind, but so too is the construct of CPE eligibility and requirements. CPE credits are needed to maintain certifications. CPE does not always build skills. Training meant to develop skills is not always eligible for CPE.

Accumulating CPE from free webinars alone will not improve your skills. Webinars frequently introduce you to new topics, but do not always dive deep into a subject. They are effective lead magnets, for other training, products, and services. Rarely do these lead magnets receive the necessary student feedback to improve learning outcomes. One significant advantage of assurance of learning is that it helps identify areas of improvement in the quality of each training program.

By choosing training from an AoL principled continuing professional education provider, you have the ability to influence the training program for future auditors. You can bring your passion and engagement to ensure the training helps you develop skills. As leaders, selecting training from an AoL principled provider, helps your team focus their learning efforts more effectively, ensuring that they continually improve their skills.

Accountability

AoL also fosters accountability by ensuring that the learning process is measurable and transparent. By setting clear learning outcomes and assessing whether these outcomes have been achieved, AoL makes it possible to hold both learners and providers accountable for the results. This creates a culture of responsibility and high expectations, which can motivate auditors to continuously strive for professional growth. It also allows organizations to have clear expectations of the learning progress, facilitating effective decision-making in terms of professional development investments.

The Impact on Knowledge Retention

When applying AoL learning principles to continuing education of the IIA competencies, we build a continuous assessment loop that helps measure a learner's understanding and retention of knowledge.

For internal auditors, this means that they can assess how well they understand auditing principles, standards, practices, and skill development. This continuous assessment acts as a feedback loop, allowing them to identify any gaps in their understanding and address these gaps promptly.

Conclusion

Assurance of learning (AoL) can play a crucial role in improving skills development for internal auditors. AoL provides a robust framework for measuring knowledge retention, identifying areas of improvement, and supporting ongoing professional development. By embracing assurance of learning, internal auditors can ensure they continually enhance their skills and maintain their professional competence. In the ever-evolving field of internal auditing, this commitment to learning and improvement is not just beneficial—it's essential.

Q&A

Where can I find an AoL training providers?

As of this post, we are not aware of any continuing professional education (CPE) providers who strictly follow the Assurance of Learning (AoL) model. With our public post and call to action, we are starting the list.

1. Audit Risk Media, LLC

Purpose

In this post, we explore the credit-hour system adopted by the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy (NASBA) for its learning system. We also discuss the limitations inherent in this method of learning measurement.

Introduction

NASBA's continuing professional development program operates on a credit-hour system. Link to the most current version of the Standards is here. In other words, educational value is measured by the amount of time spent in a learning activity. While this approach to learning seems straightforward, it has limitations. We explore three major limitations of the credit-hour approach inherit in NASBA's Standards.

Our motive is to create awareness within the Internal Audit community. We also seek to advocate for change at the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA). We previously called on the IIA to abandon NASBA as a 'standard' for auditor development here. This post provides more arguments.

Limitation 1: Quantity Over Quality

Time-based measurement ensures learners spend a certain amount of time on their development. It does not guarantee the quality of education received. This system places emphasis on quantity (time spent) rather than quality (knowledge gained). Not all instructors are equally proficient at making their points. Measurement is on the duration of the lecture, not the comprehension of the material. So, students may spend hours learning without fully understanding or retaining the information. Students may spend more time beyond the lecture to gain true comprehension. Extra resources outside of the initial training may be need to gain comprehension. This added time is not acknowledged in the awarded credits.

Limitation 2: Lack of Flexibility

The credit-hour system does not consider the varying learning speeds of different students. Some students may grasp concepts fast, while others need more time. The system fails different learners by using standardized time on a learning activity.

We shared some biases in the NASBA system before. The NASBA credit system also has implicit bias towards English speakers. NASBA does not take into account that English is not the first language for many auditors and accountants. Nor does NASBA acknowledge it may take non-native English speakers twice as long (or more) to complete the training. Yes, translation technology has greatly improved. It was not NASBA that drove this innovation, nor was any public work done by NASBA to remove this bias.

Limitation 3: Inability to Measure Engagement and Participation

NASBA delivery methods have fallen short at measuring engagement and participation of learners. NASBA is not a technology provider. They have been reliant on the software platforms to track engagement. The software has not determined if students are participating in the learning process. Identity can only be assumed with online quizzes or exams.

This limitation is particularly significant in the context of online learning. Distractions are plentiful, so keeping learners focused and engaged can be a challenge. Learners may be signed into a course but could be disengaged. Students , merely skimming through the material without truly absorbing or understanding it. This risk is heightened in a system that places a premium on the time spent rather than on the level of engagement or the quality of participation.

Webinar Example: Accountants and Auditors are conditioned to seek “free” webinars hosted by the Big Accounting firms and other trainers. Traditionally, webinar software has not measured ‘engagement’ of the attendee. Trainers ask a series of ‘polling’ questions during the webinar. This amounts to little more than tracking attendance throughout the webinar. The polling questions are not required to be related to the training content.

Webinar delivery may inadvertently encourage surface learning. Since the focus is on time rather than on understanding, students might be tempted to mute the webinar and watch only for the polling questions. They may also simply memorize information to pass the quizzes instead of truly understanding the material. In this way, this delivery method does not inherently promote critical thinking or the application of knowledge, which are vital skills in today's workforce.

Some modern webinar platforms have the ability to track the time the application is "actively viewed". In other words, they track whether the application is minimized or hidden behind other applications. Users get penalized for not being fully engaged. It’s easy to get around this new feature with a second computer monitor.

On-Demand Example: Many on-demand learning platforms provide video based training. There are several benefits of this delivery method: available globally, available anytime. Just like webinars, email address serves at identity. Most sites do not have controls in place to ensure that account sharing is not taking place. These platforms do not have strong controls in place to ensure student engagement. Students can game these systems in a number of ways. They can take multiple courses simultaneously, or walk away from their computers entirely. In either case, they can answer the quiz at anytime after the videos have concluded.

Limitation 3: Discourages Self-Paced Learning

The NASBA credit-hour system, by its nature, discourages self-paced learning. In a world where online and self-paced learning are increasingly recognized for their benefits, this model seems outdated. It can discourage students who thrive in a self-paced environment and limit the opportunities for them to excel at their own pace.

NASBA should allow for flexibility and encourage self-paced learning, acknowledging that every learner's pace and style of learning are unique. As we move forward, we should aim to create a system that fosters deep learning , sustainable understanding of materials rather than just surface-level knowledge.

Bonus Limitation 4: Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Artificial Intelligence represents the greatest innovation to 'self-paced learning' in our life time. Time bound education credits seem completely antiquated in a world with artificial intelligence. AI is an amazing and near limitless source of new ideas and skill development. Neither NASBA or the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) acknowledge AI in the continuing education Standards. So 'self-paced' learning with AI does not yet qualify for CPE credits.

Why are we so hard on NASBA?

It is important to critique and push for improvements in systems that govern our lives. That's true for our personal and professional lives. We will continue to strive for better education education and training methods. It's crucial to acknowledge our limitations and seek ways to evolve and improve.

Making the NASBA system more inclusive and accessible for learners is a must. NASBA policies should acknowledge non-native English speakers and those have learning disabilities. This could involve providing training in multiple languages, offering accommodations for learners with disabilities, and incorporating universal design principles in course materials.

As always, we're attempting to make our critique constructive so that it may be of use to NASBA. We will suggest a potential non-NASBA solution for the audit community in a future post.

Conclusion

While the NASBA learning system's credit-hour model ensures that students dedicate a certain amount of time to their studies, it has significant limitations. It emphasizes quantity over quality, lacks flexibility, and discourages self-paced learning. It also does not acknowledge advancement in AI. As the world of education continues to evolve, it's essential for entities like NASBA to modernize their programs. NASBA needs to consider their limitations and adapt to meet the changing needs and preferences of the membership.

Furthermore, the credit-hour system does not provide incentives for learners to actively participate in their courses. It encourages students to accumulate credits, not build skills or competencies. Active participation in the learning process is necessary for deep learning and long-term retention of knowledge. Deep learning and competency is necessary for the future of our profession. The credit-hour system, unfortunately, no longer supports this.

For us to truly understand and address these issues, it's crucial to re-imagine the credit-hour system. We need to prioritize comprehension over time spent in lecture. We need to accommodate diverse learning speeds, and promote active engagement in the learning process. Polling questions are not enough.

In the ever-evolving landscape of internal auditing, the need for continuous professional development is paramount. The National Association of State Boards of Accountancy (NASBA), with its rich history and influential position, has long been a guiding force in shaping Continuing Professional Education (CPE) programs for auditors. However, a closer inspection of these programs reveals potential biases inherent in the NASBA program knowledge levels. It is crucial for internal auditors to consider these biases when selecting continuing professional education (CPE) options.

Experience Bias: Unveiling Assumptions in the Basic Level

The NASBA Basic Level assumes that all beginners are at a similar starting point. This assumption potentially neglects the varied experiences and prior knowledge of participants. By presuming a one-size-fits-all approach, the basic level runs the risk of oversimplification. It may also lead to the exclusion of those who bring diverse perspectives and experiences to the table, thus limiting the breadth and depth of discussions and learning outcomes.

Think about the difference in experience between college interns, recent college graduates, and experienced professionals. College Interns and Guest auditors frequently are part of the audit team. They both may be new to audit, but have vastly different practical work experience.

Linear Progression Bias: Challenging the Intermediate Assumption

The Intermediate Level, by assuming a linear progression from Basic to Advanced, neglects the diverse and nonlinear nature of professional development. Individuals often have unique skill sets or experiences that place them in an intermediate stage without necessarily conforming to a predefined progression. This bias, therefore, may undermine the richness of individual learning paths and professional growth. Professional growth and learning often has a ‘Choose your own adventure’ dynamic.

Specialization Bias: Interrogating the Advanced Landscape

The Advanced Level implicitly values specialization over a broad skill set. This bias could potentially overlook the importance of professionals with diverse expertise. The assumption that only seasoned professionals require advanced knowledge may inadvertently sideline those with advanced capabilities at an earlier career stage. Such a bias may limit opportunities for early-stage professionals to expand their skills and contribute more significantly to auditing processes.

As a self-proclaimed ‘generalist’, I have done a little bit of everything in the audit profession: SOX & HIPAA Compliance, Operational Audit, Business Process Review, IT Audit, Financial Audit, and Data driven auditing. I’m not as deep as others who specialize their entire careers in any one of this disciplines. I do go deeper in some of these areas than others, but I do my best to ‘integrate’ disciplines across my audits. I’m usually on my own to make these ‘connections’.

Assumed Background Bias: Scrutinizing Updates

Update topics may assume that all participants have a background in the subject area. This assumption potentially neglects those entering a new field or transitioning from related disciplines. This bias might exclude valuable perspectives from individuals bringing fresh insights to the evolving landscape of audit developments, thus reducing the dynamism and adaptability of the auditing profession.

Update courses should reference other Basic level courses as prequisite knowledge, so the auditor can be sure to form their baseline comprehension before taking the ‘Update’ course. Referencing an actual ‘Basic’ course does not always happen. Frequently, the auditor is on their own to locate a sufficient course to obtain the prequisite knowledge.

Homogeneity Bias: Questioning the Overview Structure

The Overview Level assumes that professionals at all organizational levels have similar learning needs. This assumption potentially overlooks the diverse experiences and knowledge levels across an organization. This bias may inadvertently lead to oversimplified content that fails to cater to the varying needs of beginners and experienced professionals alike. It may also dampen the richness of the learning experience by not considering the unique challenges and perspectives at different levels of the organization.

If your CPE diet is primarily or soley comprised of Overview level courses, then it’s unlikely that you’ll gain a deep understanding in these areas without suplemental training materials. This is a risk to your career as an auditor, as businesses and technology are only becoming more complex. Deeper understanding is needed.

Embracing Diversity in Learning Journeys

As internal auditors, understanding and navigating biases in the NASBA program knowledge levels are crucial for shaping our continuous professional development. By acknowledging biases related to experience, progression, specialization, background, and homogeneity, we can advocate for a more inclusive learning environment. I’ve done so here, by advocating that the IIA Competencies should replace NASBA as the primary training classification. Embracing diverse learning journeys not only enhances the richness of our profession but also ensures that CPE programs cater to the unique needs of each individual auditor. Let's strive for an audit community that celebrates and leverages the diverse strengths and experiences of its members, creating a more resilient and adaptable profession for the challenges that lie ahead.

Promoting diversity in learning journeys allows us to tap into a wealth of varied experiences and insights, fostering innovation and adaptability within the profession. This approach also aids in creating a more inclusive and representative auditing community, one that is better equipped to handle the complexities and challenges of the modern business environment.

Bottom line up front (BLUF): The National Association of State Boards of Accountancy (NASBA) learning model is outdated and no longer meets the dynamic needs of the Internal Audit profession. With the January 2024 release of the new Internal Audit Standards, I am concluding that not enough consideration was given to the professional development of auditors.

Preamble: If you haven’t listened to my Audit15fun podcast appearance, where I attempt to defend the existing continuing professional development framework, then you’re really missing out! Let me know if you think I won or lost the debate! Joking aside, it actually sets the stage for this new analysis. With this post, I’ll be critiquing the current continuing professional education (CPE) program used by the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA). Yes, I’ll also propose ideas for one possible way forward in subsequent posts.

Introduction

The IIA has long adopted the NASBA learning model for its continuing professional education (CPE). This model has served the IIA well for many years. However, recent developments and shifts in the learning environment suggest that it may be time for the IIA to reconsider this approach and explore other educational models that could better serve their members.Before we get started, let’s review the NASBA program levels as a refresher.

NASBA Program Levels

Below is a summary with the official link (here).

My initial thoughts…

I don’t know how the IIA came to originally peg the learning requirements to the NASBA learning framework. The “new Standards” maintain this status quo. The Requirements of Standard 3.2 Continuing Professional Development read as follows.

Internal auditors must maintain and continually develop their competencies to improve the effectiveness and quality of internal audit services. Internal auditors must pursue continuing professional development including education and training. Practicing internal auditors who have attained professional internal audit certifications must follow the continuing professional education policies and fulfill the requirements applicable to their certifications. Source: IIA Global Internal Audit Standards

The ‘Considerations for Implementation’ section goes into more detail by providing additional context. The Global Internal Audit Standards doesn’t mention NASBA explicitly or their framework. As the IIA doesn’t refer to the NASBA framework as part of the Standards, I won’t either. Perhaps we can call it the “NASBA benchmark” or some other crowdsourced name. All that to say, we auditors continue to be connected to NASBA after the release of the new Standards.

Case In Point

Let’s take a look at a random on-demand course offered by the IIA (link). Note: this is not a product endorsement. It’s merely a quick review of the CPE course details associated with this particular course.

The NASA Program details are front and center. If you are a Certified Public Accountant (CPA), the NASBA classifications are not new. If you are not a CPA then the classifications may sound cryptic to you. I’m not a CPA, but I’ve been in the audit industry for a while. You do eventually learn them, but is it cryptic? Yes!

If you scroll all of the way down to the bottom of the course details, you’ll see the IIA Topic and Competencies for the course.

I’m an auditor, but am not a CPA. Reviewing the IIA Competencies section has more relevance to me. Demonstrating the audit ‘Competencies’ is a requirement for the practice of internal auditing. There is an official logo. Here it is.

The COSO Enterprise Risk Management Certificate provides CPE credit towards the Performance competency. There is no mention of the applicable knowledge area(s) however. Yes! There are knowledge areas within each competency! The image below is the high level list, but there is a detailed list as well.

I’ve never taken this course, so am unsure of all of the applicable knowledge areas. Perhaps the course details could be updated as follows.

Training providers creating courses for the continuing professional development of auditors should align their materials to the IIA Competencies. This includes the IIA! Moving the competencies to the top of the course summary section would be a great way to create greater awareness of the competency knowledge areas. With these two changes, an internal auditor can quickly asses the knowledge areas a course addresses.

I think there are opportunities to improve the IIA Competencies as it relates to skills development, but will reserve that for a future post. At the very least, the audit profession should promote the IIA Competencies. Some people use the phrase “eating your own dog food”. I prefer the phrase “drinking your own champagne”. À votre santé (translation: To your health…)

NASBA framework requirements

Ok, “abandon” is too strong of a word. I’m not suggesting the removal of the NASBA framework: Knowledge Level, Delivery Method, Field of Study. I know displaying them is a requirement for all NASBA accredited training providers, including the IIA. I’m merely suggesting promoting the IIA Competencies prominently (thereby de-emphasizing the NASBA framework). Leading with a “NASBA first” approach for continuing professional development has downsides, which we will explore next.

Limitations of the NASBA Model

The NASBA model, while reputable and widely used, has certain limitations that are becoming increasingly apparent. It operates on a credit-hour system, meaning that the value of the education is measured by the amount of time spent in a learning activity. This system, while straightforward, does not necessarily promote the most effective or efficient learning. It encourages participants to focus on accumulating hours rather than truly understanding and applying the material.

Further, the program levels (Basic, Intermediate, Advanced, Update, Overview) may sounds simplistic and straightforward. Simplicity is valuable. We should all try to remove complexity from our lives, but there are trade offs that must be considered.

Here's a quick critical analysis highlighting some assumptions and biases:

1. Basic:

   • Strength: Tailored for beginners to ensure a solid foundation for individuals new to a skill or attribute.

   • Weakness: Can oversimplify certain topics, potentially limiting the depth of understanding for more experienced professionals.

   • Biases:

     • Experience Bias: Assumes that all beginners are at a similar starting point, potentially neglecting the varied experiences and prior knowledge of participants.

     • Assumption of Homogeneity: Assumes that all beginners have similar learning needs, potentially overlooking the diversity in learning preferences and backgrounds.

2. Intermediate:

   • Strength: Addresses the needs with detailed knowledge, offering a level of complexity suitable for those with mid-level responsibilities.

   • Weakness: Might assume a certain level of prior knowledge, potentially excluding individuals who fall between basic and intermediate competency levels.

   • Biases:

     • Linear Progression Bias: Assumes a linear progression from Basic to Advanced, potentially neglecting the diverse and nonlinear nature of professional development.

     • Expertise Bias: Implicitly assumes that detailed knowledge equates to a certain level of expertise, potentially overlooking the value of a broad skill set.

3. Advanced:

   • Strength: Targets seasoned professionals with specialized knowledge, acknowledging the expertise required for individuals in expert roles.

   • Weakness: May pose challenges for individuals transitioning from intermediate to advanced levels, potentially creating a gap in skill development.

   • Biases:

     • Specialization Bias: Implicitly values specialization over a broad skill set, potentially overlooking the importance of professionals with diverse expertise.

     • Seniority Bias: Assumes that only seasoned professionals require advanced knowledge, potentially neglecting the learning needs of younger professionals with advanced capabilities.

4. Update:

   • Strength: Focuses on keeping participants current with new developments, demonstrating a commitment to ongoing learning.

   • Weakness: May not be suitable for those without a background in the subject area, potentially excluding individuals seeking a comprehensive introduction to new topics.

   • Biases:

     • Assumed Background Bias: Assumes all participants have a background in the subject area, potentially neglecting those entering a new field or transitioning from related disciplines.

     • Timeliness Bias: Emphasizes the importance of current developments, potentially undervaluing foundational knowledge and timeless principles.

5. Overview:

   • Strength: Provides a broad perspective suitable for professionals at all organizational levels, offering a comprehensive review of a subject area.

   • Weakness: Lack the depth required by more experienced professionals, leading to oversimplification. Taking too many overview level courses may lead to superficial understanding on topics.

   • Biases:

     • Homogeneity Bias: Assumes that professionals at all organizational levels have similar learning needs, potentially overlooking the diverse experiences and knowledge levels.

     • Experience Bias: Assumes that professionals with varying levels of experience will equally benefit from the same overview, potentially neglecting the different learning requirements of beginners and experienced professionals.

It’s true. The NASBA program levels provide a structured framework, but I believe there are too many areas where it falls short in meeting the developmental goals of the audit industry. This is a non-exhaustive list of shortcomings:

1. Rigidity: The dynamic needs of the audit profession has outgrown the simplicity offered by the tiered NASBA structure. A more adaptive approach, capable of swift adjustment to emerging trends and technologies, would better meet the needs of the industry. I think the IIA Competencies are more flexible. Has a new knowledge area gained prominence? Add it to the applicable competency, and there you go!

2. Limited Practical Application: Completing Basic, Intermediate, Advanced courses doesn’t lead to practical application. Extensive use of real-world scenarios and case studies is a better indicator of success for auditors to seamlessly translate theoretical knowledge into effective practice.

3. Lack of Interdisciplinary Approach: Auditors today often need interdisciplinary skills. The NASBA levels, while focused on accounting and auditing, could benefit from integrating elements of data analytics, technology, and risk management to address the holistic skill set required in the contemporary audit landscape.

4. Limited Focus on Soft Skills: Effective communication, critical thinking, and problem-solving are crucial for auditors. The NASBA levels could enhance their impact by explicitly incorporating and assessing these soft skills essential for success in the field. Thankfully, the IIA emphasizes the development of soft skills through the “Leadership and Communication” Performance competency.

5. Assessment Methods: The effectiveness of the NASBA program heavily relies on the appropriateness of assessment methods. If assessments do not align with real-world audit challenges or lack authenticity, they may not adequately measure the practical competence of auditors. There is NO Assurance of learning! More on this in a future post.

NASBA could enhance the framework by addressing these shortcomings. Realistically, this is not likely to happen in the time frame we needed, hence the call for the IIA to deviate from the NASBA framework. I’m advocating that IIA emphasize the Competencies instead. Doing so should cater to the dynamic nature of the audit industry and meet the multifaceted educational goals sought by professionals and employers. There are other educational challenges that the NASBA framework doesn’t address.

Shift Towards Outcome-Based Learning

There is a growing trend in professional education towards outcome-based learning. This approach focuses on the learner's achievement of specific competencies or skills, rather than the amount of time spent learning. For internal auditors, who operate in a rapidly changing and increasingly complex environment, this approach could offer a more relevant and practical education. It would encourage auditors to focus on developing the specific skills and knowledge they need to excel in their work.

The Need for Customizable Learning Paths

In today's diverse and dynamic professional landscape, there is a growing need for customizable learning paths that reflect individual learners' unique needs and goals. A more flexible model could allow auditors to tailor their continuing education to their specific career paths, industry sectors, or areas of interest, which could greatly enhance the value and relevance of their learning.

Conclusion

While the NASBA model has served the IIA and its members well in the past, it may no longer be the best fit for the current learning landscape. The limitations of the credit-hour system, the shift towards outcome-based learning, and the need for customizable learning paths all suggest that it's time for the IIA to explore other educational models. By doing so, the IIA could better support its members in their continuing professional education and growth, ultimately enhancing the profession of internal auditing as a whole. We will explore a path forward in future posts.

I had the opportunity to appear on my first podcast in December 2022. Jon Taber, founder of the Audit15Fun podcast, had been running his ‘audit duels’ theme for some time now. Jon typically posts interesting and controversial topics within the internal audit profession, and openly ask the community to debate the different sides. I spent the last decade building training and tools for the CPE industry. I had to respond to the call when Jon asked the following question. “Do CPEs lead to new skills?” I agreed to defend. My challenger, the venerable Nicola Osinake. Yikes! Like me, Nicola is well versed in Data Analytics, and runs a training and consulting firm called Audit Data Hub.

I love how this conversation evolved. I actually learned a lot about the other side, as I had to think about my position critically. That is the point of debate. While my position has not changed dramatically, Nicola opened my perspective on a few key areas. I’ll write more about those realizations in future posts. In the meantime, I hope you’ll listen, and share your thoughts on continuing professional education here.

Episode Description:

Episode 57: Do CPEs lead to new skills? If a doctor or a teacher does not keep up with current practices and knowledge, they get instant 'customer' feedback, but does the same happen with internal auditors? That was one of the many questions raised during the duel by Nicola. Jamie proposed that with the right experts, content, and platform, CPEs add value. We hope you enjoy it!

Listen:

Direct Link

CPE:

We’re working to bring you CPE credits for listening to podcasts. Why would we do that after holding the debate about skills? More to come!

Subscribe now

Program Details:

Program Level: Basic | Prerequisites: None

Instructional Method: Self-Study | Advance Preparation: None

CPE Credit: 0 hour(s) 16 minute (s) | Field of Study: Personal Development

Source: Spotify

Learning Objectives:

• Learn about CPEs and skill development with Nicola Osinaike and Jamie Ontiveros

Materials Included:

• On-Demand Video

• CPE Quiz

Requirements:

Minimum Quiz Questions: 4 Question Types: Multiple Choice or True / False Quiz Attempts: Unlimited retries Minimum Quiz score of 100% is required to obtain self-study CPE

Program For:

Auditors seeking to learn about skill development

CPE Quiz:

Coming soon…

Who am I?

Origin Midwest

I’m a career audit and risk professional originally from Saginaw, Michigan (USA). Saginaw is a small gritty Midwestern town in the middle of the rust belt, but that’s a different story. Not much additional to share about this timeframe now, but the grit and perseverance continue to define me.

Auditor

I started my career at MCI Worldcom not long before the fraud was uncovered in June of 2002 1. Even though I was an employee, I learned about the fraud mostly from the headlines. I had no idea who Cynthia Cooper was when I joined MCI Worldcom, but her story inspired and intrigued me2. That triggered my curiosity and I engaged with the externa auditors. I was able to work with the external auditors some, so I used the opportunity to share my interest in audit, and gather some career advice. My background was in Finance, not Accounting. I had not been working in Finance long, but audit became very interesting to me. One of the external auditors I spoke with suggested pursuing internal audit as a way into the profession. I researched it, and had a new job as an internal auditor just a few months later. Spoiler alert - I had no way of knowing during the summer of 2002 as a young analyst, that I would later meet Cynthia Cooper just this year in 2024! Amazing things to come!

Becoming an internal auditor was the best thing to happen in my career. I was fresh out of school and eager to learn. Audit provided endless opportunities to learn. If you’re in the profession, you know that audit is vast. As was true for many auditors at the time, SOX compliance work became the focus. After the initial years working on SOX, I shifted to operational auditing and then IT auditing. Auditing provided me with the opportunity develop as a professional through building rapport, leadership, and a combination of soft and hard skills.

Continuous Learner

I come from a family of educators, so learning is in our DNA. It wasn’t always that way. My grandmother Manuela “Maymie” Ontiveros went back to school at age 57, to pursue her Teaching certificate. “After getting her teacher's certificate, she taught kindergarten, first, second and fourth through eighth grades for 11 years until retiring in 1986. She started as a teacher's aide, attending through a grant Delta University and Saginaw Valley State University, where she earned her teaching certificate.”3 My grandmother was my first hero. Nothing stopped her.

My grandmother instilled in me the importance of education and continuous learning. She didn’t try to change my mind when I told her that I would major in “business”. She imparted me with a lesson that stays with me to this day.

That was a lot for a high schooler to take in and try to make sense of. With all of the sage advice, I had to navigate the corporate setting on my own. No one in my family had ever had a ‘corporate job’ before. I did okay working in an office environment as an analyst. Making the jump to internal auditor was huge, as it demanded so many other skills. Looking back, I acknowledge feeling imposter syndrome during the first half of my audit career. I’ve always been the ‘non-traditional’ auditor on the team. The one person on the team without a public accounting background. I also didn’t graduate from large or widely known universities. Continuous learning would open the doors to career growth.

As a new audit professional, I initially sought to gain credibility through certification. I sought to benchmark with my colleagues. Pursuing the certified public accounting (CPA) license was not an option, as it would require too much additional schooling. The certified internal auditor (CIA) certification was both more applicable for my new role, and attainable. It wouldn’t require going back to college. So I pursued and obtained several audit and business process certifications to support my professional practice.

The certifications allowed me to grow within the audit profession. I learned to pivot effortlessly between operational and IT auditing, typically performing my own ‘integrated’ audits. Scoping both business and IT risks as a solo auditor became my hallmark. I continued this approach after first becoming Audit Manager, and later Business Assurance (Internal Controls) Manager.

My personal philosophy to become a better auditor, was to learn the professions of the stakeholders I was auditing, i.e. to learn their common body of knowledge and best practices. I gained two master’s degrees in business and software design and programming along the way.

Terms like “growth mindset” and “learning culture” did not exist when I started my journey. My thirst for knowledge was partially driven by my desire to be the best internal consultant I could be. Thanks grandma! Pursuing certifications and advanced degrees helped me learn to strive for best practices in business and technical process alike. I like to think that my employers and stakeholders were better for it.

Accolades get you only so far. Working on dynamic and collaborative teams also fosters growth. I learned so much from the great leaders and colleagues I’ve had through the years. I still frequently reflect on many of the career forming conversations I’ve had with mentors and thought leaders through my career. This is a public and collective, thank you. I wouldn’t be where I am without the comradery and mentorship along the way.

Experimenter

I’ve always been a fan of Kung-Fu movies in general, and Bruce Lee specifically. Say what you will about the movie genre, Bruce Lee is the source of many great quotes to live by. Look them up if you aren’t already familiar. This is my absolute favorite.

This is my approach to learning and continuing professional education (CPE). I am always on the look out for new concepts with the intent of finding a way to apply the learning. I’m not interested in learning to be the smartest in the room. This ego driven approach to learning can actually hurt your professional relationships and limit your success in an audit role. Applying knowledge and adapting your practice is “the way”. Yes! I’ve applied Bruce’s principles to my audit career. Continuous learning and experimentation without the pageantry. Use what works!

Amazon has a slightly different take on this principle.

This remains one of my favorite Amazon leadership principles, and I continue to live it years after working there. Times have changed and so have I. I no longer suffer from imposter syndrome. Having a background in operational, financial, compliance, and technology audit allows me to see risk wholistically. Beyond audit, I am a Lean practitioner, coder (Python), and data analytics engineer.

I didn’t know this when starting my audit career, but the audit profession is largely a self-trained industry in my experience, with notable training provided by the “Big” accounting firms and Protiviti. What I mean by this is the best continuous professional education (CPE) training continues to come from within our profession’s membership. In this way, we are self-taught as an industry. I have thoughts.

I’m an advocate of how our industry maintains our common body of knowledge and self certifies. However, there are risks related to single sourcing your training in this way. “Free” CPE provided by the large Accounting firms may not really have your professional development in mind. Billable consulting hours are still the primary revenue driver for these firms. I don’t mean to create a flame war here, but am merely calling out single sourcing “free” CPE as a risk to your professional growth.

It’s not lost on me that the internal audit profession is at a crossroads for relevancy. Could it be that we are guilty of consuming too many “free” CPE credits without building our skill sets? Will this generation of internal auditors be as relevant as the last? It’s this backdrop that I introduce this site and purpose.

Enter Audit Ri.sk

I’m starting this new blog and media company catering to the internal audit community. I’ve always shared my audit knowledge and experiences freely with my colleagues. I contributed during team “lunch and learns” and IIA chapter presentations. Obviously, the tools of the internet make it easy to share globally. I have experience here too. I started three online businesses over the past decade that support the CPE economy. I’m happy to say that all three are healthy and operating today. I’ll share more about them soon. This post is about the launch of my fourth and most personal launch. I’ve been the “tech” guy behind the scenes for the previous launches. This launch is about sharing what makes me unique. My family, mentors, and personal experience got me here. I will share passionately and earnestly. Hopefully something is useful to you.

Please find me on LinkedIn4, but I’m hoping you’ll connect with me here as well.

Sources: