In many organisations, compliance resembles a well-oiled machine:
a few months of intense mobilisation before the audit… then a long silence until the next
episode.
On paper, the company “passes its audits”.
In reality, it has never really stabilised its trajectory.
The classic scenario: everything for the audit, then we file away the documents.
It all starts with a date: the next audit or visit from a major customer. We launch a “project”:
- dedicated committee,
- a tightened action plan,
- workshops, reviews, updating of documents,
- Hunt for evidence to demonstrate compliance.
The teams are mobilizing, sometimes to the detriment of other subjects. In the last few weeks, we are still accelerating: corrections of procedures, evidence to be reconstituted, action plans “completed” in time.
The audit is going well, non-conformities are limited, the report is acceptable. General relief.
Then, gradually:
- the committee no longer meets,
- the tables are no longer updated,
- the evidence is no longer nourished,
- Decisions are no longer systematically traced.
We go back to “day-to-day”, until the next audit.
The collateral effects of the "audit campaign’" mode
In the moment, this approach gives a sense of efficiency :
we focus, we deliver, we “tick the box.”
But in the medium term, the cost is high :
-
Team fatigue: compliance is perceived as an additional, one-off workload,
never as a natural part of daily operations; -
Loss of meaning: the measures implemented for the audit are not always
reflected in real practices; -
Risk of misalignment: between two audits, the organization evolves
(projects, tools, threats), but the security framework remains static; -
Ambiguous message to auditors and clients: a “clean” system is shown at a
given point in time, without proving its sustainability.
Ultimately, the question is no longer just: “Are we passing the audit?” but rather: “Have we built something sustainable between two audits?”
Moving from "one shot" to trajectory
Getting out of this trap does not mean “being in a permanent audit”. This means organizing compliance as a trajectory, with clear rhythms and appointments.
In concrete terms, this involves:
- regular meetings (monthly, quarterly) where risks, actions and incidents are monitored;
- a management base that lives on a daily basis: requirements, risks, action plans and tests in the same place;
- stable responsibilities : who keeps up to date what, at what pace;
- An explicit link to business priorities : each measure is not “for auditing”, but to protect an asset, a process, a customer.
In this model, the audit becomes:
- a photo of a film already in progress,
- an opportunity to validate what exists,
- a moment to adjust the trajectory, not to reinvent it. From this point on, the audit is no longer a cleaver, but a step to formalize a
The question to ask yourself
Beyond procedures, a simple question often helps to clarify one’s position :
- If the auditor arrived six months earlier than expected, would you be ready…
or would you need to relaunch a “special audit project”?
In the first case, compliance is part of normal operations.
In the second, it remains a one-off exercise, fragile by nature.
Key concept of the day
Solid compliance is not built around a single audit,
but rather through a consistent, visible and sustained approach over time.
It is precisely this transition from ‘one-off’ mode to ‘cruising mode’
that partners such as KP Consulting can support:
clarifying the trajectory, setting the right pace, providing the tools for steering…
and ensuring that the next audit is a logical step, rather than a race against the clock.
KP Consulting is a consulting firm specialising in compliance and risk management. We support our clients in developing and implementing effective compliance and risk management systems. We are certified by the French Financial Markets Authority (AMF) and the French Financial Supervisory Authority (AAM).
